Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22258957›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Positive end expiratory pressure for preterm infants requiring conventional mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome or bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

Nicolas Bamat, David Millar, Sanghee Suh, Haresh Kirpalani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Sudden versus gradual pressure wean from Nasal CPAP in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017
    Trial
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicolas BamatPediatric Residency Program, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street and Civic CenterBoulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, USA. nbamat@gmail.com.
David Millar
Sanghee Suh
Haresh Kirpalani
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · USRoyal Jubilee Maternity Services · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) of neonates has been used as a treatment of respiratory failure for over 30 years. While CMV facilitates gas exchange, it may simultaneously damage the lung. Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) has received less attention than other ventilation parameters when considering this balance of benefit and possible harm. While an appropriate level of PEEP may exert substantial benefits in ventilation, both inappropriately low or high levels may lead to harm. An appropriate level of PEEP for neonates may also be best achieved by an individualized approach.

objectives1. To compare the effects of different levels of PEEP in preterm newborn infants requiring CMV for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).2. To compare the effects of different levels of PEEP in preterm infants requiring CMV for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).3. To compare the effects of different methods for individualizing PEEP to an optimal level in preterm newborn infants requiring CMV for RDS. SEARCH

methodsThe search was performed in accordance with the standard search strategy for the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, study references and experts were utilized for study identification. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials studying preterm infants (less than 37 weeks gestational age) requiring CMV with endotracheal intubation and undergoing randomization to either different PEEP levels (RDS or BPD) or two or more alternative methods for individualizing PEEP levels (RDS only) were included. Cross-over trials were included but we limited the findings to those in the first cross-over period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN

resultsAn initial evaluation identified 10 eligible articles. Ultimately, a single study met our inclusion criteria. The study addressed the effects of different levels of PEEP in preterm newborn infants requiring CMV for RDS. Only short term physiologic measures were reported. All results were limited to a small sample size without statistically significant results. No trials addressing the effect of PEEP in infants with BPD or strategies to individualize the management of PEEP were identified. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to guide selection of appropriate PEEP levels for RDS or CMV. There is a need for well designed clinical trials evaluating the optimal application of this important and frequently applied intervention.

Indexed as

Bronchopulmonary DysplasiaHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematurePositive-Pressure RespirationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID22258957
OpenAlexW2155052770

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.