Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23284861›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

Lower versus higher oxygen concentration for delivery room stabilisation of preterm neonates: systematic review.

Jennifer V E Brown, Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Melissa Harden, William McGuire

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants resuscitated with different oxygen concentration at birth.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer V E BrownCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Thirimon Moe-Byrne
Melissa Harden
William McGuire
University of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmerging evidence suggests that initiating delivery room respiratory support or resuscitation for term infants using lower rather than higher concentrations of oxygen reduces mortality and the risk of serious morbidity. Uncertainty exists with regard to applicability of this strategy for preterm infants who have different underlying reasons for respiratory distress and risks for harm at birth than term infants.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect on mortality and morbidity of using lower (21- 50%) versus higher (>50%) oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support of preterm infants.

resultsWe identified six randomised controlled trials in which a total of 484 infants participated. Most participants were preterm infants born before 32 weeks' gestation. One trial was quasi-randomised and in one trial allocation concealment was not described. Clinicians and investigators were aware of the interventions in all but one trial. Meta-analyses found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death pooled risk ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.98), but this effect disappeared when only the four trials with adequate allocation concealment were included [pooled risk ratio 1.0 (95% confidence interval 0.45, 2.24)]. None of the trials has evaluated any neuro-developmental outcomes.

conclusionsThe available trial data do not provide strong evidence that using lower versus higher oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support for preterm infants confers important benefits or harms. Lack of allocation concealment and blinding of clinicians and assessors are the major sources of bias in the existing trials. Further, large, good-quality trials are needed to resolve on-going uncertainties and inform clinical practice.

Indexed as

Delivery RoomsInfant, PrematureOxygenOxygen ConsumptionApgar ScoreFemaleHospital MortalityHumansInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMorbidityPregnancyOxygen

Identifiers

PMID23284861
PMCPMC3527365
OpenAlexW1965534380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.