SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Natural surfactant extract versus synthetic surfactant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 263 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of nebulized surfactant for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in adults (COVSurf trial).Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Surfactant Therapy for Early Onset Pneumonia in Late Preterm and Term Neonates Needing Mechanical Ventilation.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
- Clinical review: Exogenous surfactant therapy for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome--where do we go from here?Critical care (London, England) · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue.
objectivesTo compare the effect of synthetic surfactant to natural surfactant in premature infants with established respiratory distress syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Medline (MeSH terms: pulmonary surfactant; limits: age groups, newborn infant; publication type, clinical trial), previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conference and symposia proceedings, expert informants, and journal hand searching in the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing administration of synthetic surfactants to administration of natural surfactant extracts in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome were considered for this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding clinical outcomes including pneumothorax, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage (all intraventricular hemorrhage and severe intraventricular hemorrhage), chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, and mortality were excerpted by the primary reviewer (R. Soll). Data analysis was conducted according to the standards of the Neonatal Cochrane Review Group. MAIN
resultsThe meta-analysis supports a significant reduction in the risk of pneumothorax (typical relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56, 0.83; typical risk difference -0.04 95% CI -0.06, -0.02). No disadvantages to natural surfactant extract treatment are noted regarding other outcomes. A trend towards reduced mortality is noted in association with natural surfactant extract treatment. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsBoth natural surfactant extracts and synthetic surfactant extracts are effective in the treatment of established respiratory distress syndrome. Comparative trials demonstrate greater early improvement in the requirement for ventilatory support and fewer pneumothoraces associated with natural surfactant extract treatment. On clinical grounds, natural surfactant extracts would seem to be the more desirable choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.