Trial reportBMC pediatrics2012
Infant flow biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BP- NCPAP) vs. infant flow NCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in infants' ≤ 1,250 grams: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00308789 (Infant Flow Biphasic NCPAP Versus Infant Flow NCPAP for the Facilitation of Successful Extubation in Infants </= 1250 Grams), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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.
Infant Flow Biphasic NCPAP Versus Infant Flow NCPAP for the Facilitation of Successful Extubation in Infants </= 1250 Grams: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postextubation use of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Peri-extubation settings in preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Pooled it
- Eligibility Criteria and Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials That Include Infants Born Extremely Premature: A Systematic Review.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Bubble NIPPV: Guidelines for Use.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- SpO2, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure during successful or failed application of non-invasive ventilation after delivery - a single-centre study.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2020Article
- Non-invasive Ventilation for Children With Chronic Lung Disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Review
- Three non-invasive ventilation strategies for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2020Article
- Article
- Late-onset Circulatory Collapse and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure are Useful Predictors of Treatment-requiring Retinopathy of Prematurity: A 9-year Retrospective Analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- A Comparison of the Effect of Nasal bi-level Positive Airway Pressure and Sigh-positive Airway Pressure on the Treatment of the Preterm Newborns Weighing Less than 1500 g Affiliated with Respiratory Distress Syndrome.International journal of preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Advances in respiratory support for high risk newborn infants.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2015Article
- Bi-level CPAP does not change central blood flow in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of mechanical ventilation is associated with lung injury in preterm infants and therefore the goal is to avoid or minimize its use. To date there is very little consensus on what is considered the "best non-invasive ventilation mode" to be used post-extubation. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BP-NCPAP) vs. NCPAP in facilitating sustained extubation in infants ≤ 1,250 grams.
methodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial of BP-NCPAP vs. NCPAP in infants ≤ 1,250 grams extubated for the first time following mechanical ventilation since birth. Infants were extubated using preset criteria or at the discretion of the attending neonatologist. The primary outcome was the incidence of sustained extubation for 7 days. Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse events and short-term neonatal outcomes.
resultsSixty-seven infants received BP-NCPAP and 69 NCPAP. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The trial was stopped early due to increased use of non-invasive ventilation from birth, falling short of our calculated sample size of 141 infants per group. The incidence of sustained extubation was not statistically different between the BP-NCPAP vs. NCPAP group (67% vs. 58%, P = 0.27). The incidence of adverse events and short-term neonatal outcomes were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05) except for retinopathy of prematurity which was noted to be higher (P = 0.02) in the BP-NCPAP group.
conclusionsBiphasic NCPAP may be used to assist in weaning from mechanical ventilation. The effectiveness and safety of BP-NCPAP compared to NCPAP needs to be confirmed in a large multi-center trial as our study conclusions are limited by inadequate sample size. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION #: NCT00308789 SOURCE OF SUPPORT: Grant # 06-06, Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation, Toronto, Canada. Summit technologies Inc. provided additional NCPAP systems and an unrestricted educational grant.Abstract presented at The Society for Pediatric Research Meeting, Baltimore, USA, May 2nd-5th, 2009 and Canadian Paediatric Society Meeting, June 23rd-29th, Ottawa, 2009.
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.