SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airways pressure for preventing morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants.
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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic or very early initiation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Continuous positive airway pressure: early, late, or stay with synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2006Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- [Ventilation of newborns and infants].Der Anaesthesist · 2004Review
- Nasal CPAP in preterm infants--does it work and how?Intensive care medicine · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue.
objectivesTo determine if prophylactic nasal continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) commenced soon after birth regardless of respiratory status in the very preterm or very low birth weight infant reduces the use of IPPV and the incidence of chronic lung disease (CLD) without adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia, proceedings, expert informants, journal hand searching mainly in the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of very preterm infants < 32weeks gestation and / or < 1500 gms at birth were eligible. Comparison had to be between prophylactic nasal CPAP commencing soon after birth regardless of the respiratory status of the infant compared with "standard" methods of treatment where CPAP or IPPV is used for a defined respiratory condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each author, were used. Data were analysed using relative risk (RR). MAIN
resultsThere are no statistically significant differences in any of the outcomes reported in the single eligible study of 82 very low birth weight infants. More infants in the prophylactic nasal CPAP group received IPPV; however, this difference is not statistically significant. There are trends towards increases in the incidence of CLD (undefined) [RR 2.27 (0.77, 6.65)], of death [RR 3.63 (0.42, 31.08)] and of intraventricular hemorrhage [RR 2.18 (0.84, 5.62)] in the treatment group. The study also found a trend towards a reduction in the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in the treatment group [RR 0.40 (0.13, 1.21)]. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is currently insufficient information to make recommendations for clinical practice. The single study reviewed showed no strong evidence of benefit in reducing the incidence of IPPV. The tendency for some adverse outcomes to be increased is of concern and more data are needed to clarify this. A multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing prophylactic nasal CPAP with "standard" methods of treatment is needed to clarify its clinical role.
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.