ArticleIranian Red Crescent medical journal2013
Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure.
Article in Iranian Red Crescent medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-frequency ventilation in preterm infants and neonates.Pediatric research · 2023Review
- Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory failure is a major problem in neonatal medicine in all over the world and has different causes. Using mechanical ventilation is one of its major treatments.
objectivesDifferent strategies have been expressed in this context, including high frequency mechanical ventilation. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study is a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted on all newborns with respiratory failure hospitalized in the NICU of Tehran vali-asr Hospital during 2009.These patients were divided in to two groups through block Randomization method; conventional mechanical ventilation group and high frequency ventilation group.
resultsIntraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and air leak (e.g. pneumothorax) were less in HFPPV group than conventional group (P = 0.012 and P = 0.038). The mean time needed for mechanical ventilation was lower in HFPPV group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.922). Needing to O2 in 28 days of age was almost equal in both groups (P = 0. 99). Mortality, and refractory hypoxia and PVL were lower in HFPPV group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.301, P = 0. 508, P = 0. 113).
conclusionsTreatment of neonatal respiratory failure with high rate mechanical ventilation may reduce some complications.
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.