ReviewSudanese journal of paediatrics2013
Surfactant therapy: the current practice and the future trends.
Review in Sudanese journal of paediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of LISA and INSURE techniques for surfactant administration: a multicentre retrospective study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Conformational changes of surfactant protein B due to the alveolar air/liquid interface using molecular dynamics.Journal of molecular modeling · 2025Article
- Efficacy of human immunoglobulin injection and effects on serum inflammatory cytokines in neonates with acute lung injury.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of surfactant preparations used in the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a well known fact; however, many controversies remain. The debate over which surfactant to be used, when and what is the best mode of delivery is still raging. Currently, animal-derived surfactants are preferred and clearly recommended by various practice guidelines, but new synthetic surfactants containing peptides that mimic the action of surfactant proteins are emerging and they seem to have a comparable efficacy profile to the natural surfactants. It is hoped that with further improvements, they will outperform their natural counterparts in terms of reliability and cost-effectiveness. Early surfactant administration was shown to further reduce the risk of RDS and its complications. However, as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is becoming increasingly the preferred first-line therapy for RDS, the less invasive approaches of respiratory support along with early selective surfactant administration (e.g. INSURE) appears to provide a better option. Although neonatal RDS is still the main indication of surfactant therapy, other pathological processes received considerable attention and major research has been dedicated to explore the role of surfactant in their management, Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) and congenital pneumonia are two worthy examples. The most updated practice guidelines do recommend the use of endotracheal instillation as the preferred mode of surfactant delivery. However, aerosolization and other non-invasive methods are being investigated with some success; nonetheless, further improvements are very much in need.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27493353PMC4949959W2184488896What 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.