ReviewThe Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association
Clinical Question: Does Medical Evidence Support Routine Oronasopharyngeal Suction at Delivery?
Review in The Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Oronasopharyngeal suction (ONPS) is regularly performed in neonates at delivery in many hospitals across the country today. Although ONPS is a technique that has essentially become habitual for most obstetricians, its theorized usefulness to help promote expeditious lung aeration after delivery by removal of amniotic fluid, meconium, mucus and blood that may otherwise be aspirated by the newborn, is currently not recommended. ONPS can cause vagal stimulation-induced bradycardia and thus hypercapnea, iatrogenic infection due to mucous membrane injury, and development of subsequent neonatal brain injury due to changes in cerebral blood flow regulation, particularly in premature infants. Multiple studies that have been performed comparing routine use of ONPS to no intervention controls indicate that newborns receiving ONPS took a longer time to achieve normal oxygen saturations, caused apneic episodes, and caused disturbances in heart rate (mainly bradycardia) compared to the control groups. Although the ONPS groups revealed no significantly different APGAR scores at 1 and 5 minutes, the ONPS groups took longer than the control group to reach an arterial oxygen saturation greater than or equal to 92% in the first minutes of life. Currently, Neonatal Resuscitation Program guidelines discourage the use of or meconium-stained amniotic fluid and in the absence of obvious obstruction. Furthermore, this manuscript highlights various literature sources revealing that the routine use of ONPS at the time of delivery can cause more harm than good, if any good at all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27328554PMC4918762W2465844745What 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.