ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2014
A comparison of two interventions for HHHFNC in preterm infants weighing 1,000 to 1,500 g in the recovery period of newborn RDS.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal cannula, beside administering low-flow therapy, showed the capability for the administration of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) through high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Meeting specific physical criteria of 100% relative humidity (RH) and temperature of 37(°)C are the basic interventional requirements to administer oxygen for the newborns through a nasal cannula. Recently, two systems, MR850 and PMH7000, received the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to administer heated, humidified HFNC (HHHFNC). These systems are evaluated in this study based on their humidifying and heating capabilities. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was done as an RCT on newborns weighing 1,000 to 1,500 g recovering from respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) while nCPAP was administered at CDP = 4 cmH2O, Fio2 <30%. Patients were randomized to two groups of 35 receiving HHHFNC after treatment with nCPAP, with one group using MR850 humidifier and the other PMH7000. The patients were compared according to the duration of HHHFNC administration, repeated need for nCPAP respiratory support, the need for invasive ventilation, apnea, chronic lung disease (CLD), nasal trauma, RH, and temperature of the gases.
resultsThe average time of support with HHHNFC did not show any significant difference in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in the need for nCPAP, invasive ventilation, apnea, nasal trauma, and CLD. The difference in the levels of average temperature and humidity was significant (P value <0.001).
conclusionAlthough the records of temperature and RH in the PMH7000 system was lower than the records from the MR850 system, no clinical priority was observed for respiratory support with HHHNFC in the two systems.
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.