Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109120›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

A multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, comparing high flow therapy with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary support for preterm infants with respiratory distress (the HIPSTER trial): study protocol.

Calum T Roberts, Louise S Owen, Brett J Manley, Susan M Donath, Peter G Davis

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Calum T RobertsThe Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Louise S OwenThe Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Brett J ManleyThe Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Susan M DonathMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter G DavisThe Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHigh flow (HF) therapy is an increasingly popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants. While there is now evidence to support the use of HF to reduce extubation failure, there have been no appropriately designed and powered studies to assess the use of HF as primary respiratory support soon after birth. Our hypothesis is that HF is non-inferior to the standard treatment--nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP)--as primary respiratory support for preterm infants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HIPSTER trial is an unblinded, international, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Eligible infants are preterm infants of 28-36(+6) weeks' gestational age (GA) who require primary non-invasive respiratory support for respiratory distress in the first 24 h of life. Infants are randomised to treatment with either HF or NCPAP. The primary outcome is treatment failure within 72 h after randomisation, as determined by objective oxygenation, blood gas, and apnoea criteria, or the need for urgent intubation and mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of intubation, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, nasal trauma, costs associated with hospital care and parental stress. With a specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, using a two-sided 95% CI and 90% power, the study requires 375 infants per group (total 750 infants). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the relevant human research ethics committees at The Royal Women's Hospital (13/12), The Royal Children's Hospital (33144A), The Mercy Hospital for Women (R13/34), and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (2013/1657). The trial is currently recruiting at 9 centres in Australia and Norway. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed international journals, and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12613000303741.

Indexed as

Oxygen Inhalation TherapyPositive-Pressure RespirationAdministration, IntranasalClinical ProtocolsContinuous Positive Airway PressureFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMalePractice Guidelines as TopicRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornRespiratory InsufficiencyTreatment OutcomeNEONATOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID26109120
PMCPMC4479999
OpenAlexW2129409868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.