ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2017
Comparison of Effort of Breathing for Infants on Nasal Modes of Respiratory Support.
Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in neonates with grade 3 bronchopulmonary dysplasia.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Esophageal Pressure Measurement in Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Due to Severe COPD Exacerbation Requiring NIV-A Pilot Safety Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Predicting Failure of Non-Invasive Ventilation With RAM Cannula in Bronchiolitis.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management).Contemporary clinical trials · 2020Article
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes associated with nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation in acute pediatric respiratory failure.World journal of critical care medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byReply.2018
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo directly compare effort of breathing between high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), nasal intermittent mechanical ventilation (NIMV), and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). STUDY
designThis was a single center prospective cross-over study for patients <6 months in the cardiothoracic or pediatric intensive care unit receiving nasal noninvasive respiratory support after extubation. We measured effort of breathing using esophageal manometry with pressure-rate product (PRP) on all 3 modes. NIMV synchrony was determined by comparing patient efforts (esophageal manometry) with mechanically delivered breaths (spirometry in ventilator circuit). On NIMV, PRP and synchrony was also measured after adding a nasal clip on 26 patients.
resultsForty-two children were included. Median (IQR) age was 2 (0.5, 4) months. There was no difference in median PRP between HFNC 6 liters per minute, 355 (270,550), NIMV 12/5 cm H
conclusionsFor infants, effort of breathing is similar on HFNC, NIMV, and NCPAP after extubation, regardless of flow rate or inspiratory pressure. We speculate that bi-level NIMV may be superior if high levels of synchrony can be achieved.
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.