Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21360267›Full record

ArticlePediatric cardiology2011

Patent ductus arteriosus in the preterm infant: a survey of clinical practices in French neonatal intensive care units.

Olivier Brissaud, Julie Guichoux

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Prophylactic Indomethacin Revisited.The Journal of pediatrics · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

2 authors.

Olivier BrissaudNeonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bordeaux Teaching Hospital, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France.
Julie Guichoux

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is one of the most common problems in the care of premature infants, especially the extremely premature. There is no real consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria or treatment of a hemodynamically significant PDA. Its diagnosis, assessment, and treatment still remain challenges. Therefore, we investigated clinical practices in French tertiary neonatology centers regarding the management of PDA to compare their similarities and differences. We sent a questionnaire by email to the PDA specialist in every French tertiary neonatal intensive care unit. It contained 27 items regarding the unit's structure, method of diagnosing PDA, and treatment choices. The completed questionnaire were returned via email and analyzed blindly. The questionnaire response rate was 87.5%, which allowed us to draw some conclusions regarding French clinical practices in the care of neonates with PDA. Although the diagnostic criteria are quite similar, the therapeutic practices are rather different across neonatal care units. We highlight the great variability in French clinical practices when it comes to treating PDA and underscore the necessity for harmonization of these practices, which could be achieved using multicenter, randomized studies to identify the advantages of one approach compared with another.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalContraindicationsData CollectionDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleDuctus Arteriosus, PatentEchocardiographyFranceHumansIbuprofenIndomethacinInfant, NewbornInfant, Premature, DiseasesLigationAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalIbuprofenIndomethacin

Identifiers

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.