Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20614468›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Flow-cycled versus time-cycled synchronized ventilation for neonates.

Sven M Schulzke, Jane Pillow, Ben Ewald, Sanjay K Patole

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02522455 (Flow-cycled Ventilation in Preterm Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02522455 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Flow-cycled Ventilation in Preterm Infants (FLIPI): A Pilot Study Looking at the Tolerance of Flow-cycled Ventilation by Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorManchester University NHS Foundation TrustRan2015 to 2016Enrolled6ConditionsNeonatal Respiratory Distress SyndromeArmsFlow-cycle ventilation, Time-cycle ventilation mode
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Sven M SchulzkeDepartment of Neonatology, University of Basel Children's Hospital (UKBB), Spitalstrasse 21, Basel, Switzerland, 4031.
Jane Pillow
Ben Ewald
Sanjay K Patole

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSynchronized ventilation of neonates is standard care in industrialized countries. Both flow-cycled and time-cycled modes of synchronized ventilation are in widespread use for assisted ventilation of neonates.

objectivesTo determine the effect of flow-cycled versus time-cycled synchronized ventilation on the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) in neonates requiring assisted ventilation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2009, PubMed (January 1966 to October 2009), EMBASE (January 1974 to October 2009) and CINAHL (January 1982 to October 2009). We checked references and cross-references from identified studies. Abstracts from the proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies Meetings (from January 1990 to October 2009) were handsearched. We placed no restrictions on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials comparing flow-cycled with time-cycled synchronized endotracheal ventilation in neonates, reporting on at least one outcome of interest were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (SMS) searched the literature as described above. Selection of studies and data extraction were done separately by two authors (SMS and SKP). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion involving all authors. MAIN

resultsOnly two small, short-term, randomized, individual cross-over trials involving a total of 19 preterm neonates met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials reported on lung mechanics and short-term respiratory physiology outcomes but not on clinical morbidities or mortality. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of flow-cycled compared to time-cycled synchronized ventilation in neonates. Large randomized clinical trials using a parallel-group design and reporting on clinically important outcomes are warranted.

Indexed as

HumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornRespiratory Mechanics

Identifiers

PMID20614468
PMCPMC12925680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.