Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19399015›Full record

ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2009

Neonatal ventilators: how do they differ?

S M Donn

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

S M DonnDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, CS Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0254, USA. smdonnmd@med.umich.edu
Michigan Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remarkable technological advances over the past two decades have brought dramatic changes to the neonatal intensive care unit. Microprocessor-based mechanical ventilation has replaced time-cycled, pressure-limited, intermittent mandatory ventilation with almost limitless options for the management of respiratory failure in the prematurely born infant. Unfortunately, much of the infusion of technology occurred before the establishment of a convincing evidence base. This review focuses on the basic principles of mechanical ventilation, nomenclature and the characteristics of both conventional and high-frequency devices.

Indexed as

Therapy, Computer-AssistedBronchopulmonary DysplasiaClinical Trials as TopicEquipment DesignEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInfant, NewbornOxygenPneumothoraxRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornSurvival RateTidal VolumeTreatment OutcomeVentilator WeaningOxygen

Identifiers

PMID19399015
OpenAlexW1965031363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.