ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2014
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation for neonatal continuous positive airway pressure failure.
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02788110 (Prospective Crossover Comparison of Work of Breathing During Non-invasive Ventilation), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Prospective Crossover Comparison of Work of Breathing During Non-invasive Ventilation: Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) Versus Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) in Premature Neonates
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors and outcomes of successful primary nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in extremely preterm infants: A retrospective observational study.Qatar medical journal · 2025Trial
- Tidal volume transmission during non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation via RAMJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Trial
- Bubble NIPPV: Guidelines for Use.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Non-invasive Respiratory Support of the Premature Neonate: From Physics to Bench to Practice.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Review
- Predictors of early synchronized non-invasive ventilation failure for infants < 32 weeks of gestational age with respiratory distress syndrome.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of Synchronized Noninvasive Ventilation to Prevent Intubation in Preterm Infants.AJP reports · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the success rate of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for treatment of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) failure and prevention of conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm neonates.
methodsSince November 2012 to April 2013, a total number of 55 consecutive newborns with gestational ages of 26-35 weeks who had CPAP failure were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The NIPPV group received NIPPV with the initial peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) of 16-20 cmH2O and frequency of 40-60 breaths/min. The CV group received PIP of 12-20 cmH2O and frequency of 40-60 breaths/min.
resultsAbout 74% of newborns who received NIPPV for management of CPAP failure responded to NIPPV and did not need intubation and mechanical ventilation. Newborns with lower postnatal age at entry to the study and lower 5 min Apgar score more likely had NIPPV failure. In addition, treatment failure was higher in newborns who needed more frequent doses of surfactant. Duration of oxygen therapy was 9.28 days in CV group and 7.77 days in NIPPV group (P = 0.050). Length of hospital stay in CV group and NIPPV groups were 48.7 and 41.7 days, respectively (P = 0.097).
conclusionsNIPPV could decrease the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with CPAP failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25489454PMC4258678What 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.