ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2003
Neonatal mechanical ventilation.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognosis of neonates receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in low-resource settings: a systematic review and prognostic meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Infants With Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA pediatrics · 2018Trial
- Association of immune cell recruitment and BPD development.Molecular and cellular pediatrics · 2022Review
- Respiratory Interventions for Preterm Infants in LMICs: A Prospective Study From Cape Town, South Africa.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
- Neonatal mechanical ventilation: Indications and outcome.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2015Article
- An experience with neonatal ventilation in eastern U.P.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was undertaken to analyze indications, complications, outcome and the factors influencing neonatal mechanical ventilation.
methodsProspective observational study conducted on 102 consecutive newborns, who required mechanical ventilation in a medical college tertiary neonatal care setting.
resultsThe commonest indication was birth asphyxia (37.3%), followed by hyaline membrane disease (HMD) (31.4%), meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) (21.2%), septicemia (14.7%) and apnea of prematurity (5.9%). The overall survival rate in our study was 51%. Babies weighing less than 1.5 kg and less than 32 weeks of gestation had survival rates of 30% and 25% respectively. The best outcome among various indications was observed in babies with MAS (63.6%) followed by pneumonia (62.5%) and HMD (53.1%). Babies with birth asphyxia and septicemia had a low survival rate of only 42% and 40% respectively. The overall complication rate in the study was 58.8%. Common complications encountered were septicemia (42%), tube block (36%) and air leak (15%).
conclusionAbout half (51%) of newborns requiring mechanical ventilations for various indications survived and more than half (58.8%) developed complications. The study also reconfirms that survival rate increases with birth weight and gestational age irrespective of indication.
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.