ArticlePaediatrics & child health2011
Does the use of primary continuous positive airway pressure reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in infants ≤32 weeks' gestation?
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surfactant Administration Through Laryngeal or Supraglottic Airways (SALSA): A Viable Method for Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- [Application of the Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality method in neonatal intensive care units].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2018Review
- The EPIQ evidence reviews - practical tools for an integrated approach to knowledge translation.Paediatrics & child health · 2011Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentilator-induced lung injury is a recognized risk factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
objectiveTo determine whether primary continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), defined as CPAP without previous endotracheal intubation for any indication, can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in infants born at ≤32 weeks' gestational age.
methodsThe literature was reviewed using the methodology for systematic reviews for the Consensus on Resuscitation Science adapted from the American Heart Association's International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.
resultsFourteen studies were reviewed. Eleven studies provided varying degrees of supportive evidence (level of evidence 3 to 4) that the use of primary CPAP can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.
conclusionThe use of CPAP as a primary intervention and mode of respiratory support is an option for infants ≤32 weeks' gestation, but avoidance of intubation and mechanical ventilation is more likely in mature infants >27 weeks' gestation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23204903PMC3225473What 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.