SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Continuous distending airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome in 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 197 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is the single most important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants (Greenough 1998, Bancalari 1992). Intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) with surfactant is the standard treatment for the condition. The major difficulty with IPPV is that it is invasive, resulting in airway and lung injury and contributing to the development of chronic lung disease.
objectivesIn spontaneously breathing preterm infants with RDS, to determine if continuous distending airway pressure (CDAP) reduces the need for IPPV and associated morbidity 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, conference and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal hand searching mainly in the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of newborn infants with RDS were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending airway pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharnygeal tube, or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNDP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and lower body, compared with standard care. 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. MAIN
resultsCDAP is associated with a lower rate of failed treatment (death or use of assisted ventilation), overall mortality, and mortality in infants with birthweights above 1500 g. The use of CDAP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsIn preterm infants with RDS the application of CDAP either as CPAP or CNDP is associated with some benefits, particularly in infants with birthweights over 1500 gms. The extent of this benefit is difficult to assess given the outdated methods to administer CDAP, low use of antenatal corticosteroids, non-availability of surfactant and the intensive care setting of the 1970's in which these trials were done. Where resources are limited, such as in developing countries, CPAP for RDS may have a clinical role. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration and its role in modern intensive care settings
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.