Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28425965›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2017

Comparison of CPAP and HFNC in Management of Bronchiolitis in Infants and Young Children.

Majken Bisgaard Pedersen, Signe Vahlkvist

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Oxygen Therapy in Children Under Five Years of Age with Respiratory Distress in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. [Predictive factors for failure of continuous positive airway pressure treatment in infants with bronchiolitis].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2020
    Article
  18. Noninvasive Ventilation and High-Flow NasalSultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2018
    Review
  19. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Majken Bisgaard PedersenPediatric Department, Hospital of South West Jutland, Finsensgade 35, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark. Majkenpedersen@gmail.com.
Signe VahlkvistPediatric Department, Hospital of South West Jutland, Finsensgade 35, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark. Signevv@gmail.com.
Hospital South West Jutland · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been used in infants with bronchiolitis for decades. Recently, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy was introduced We conducted a retrospective study of treatment with CPAP vs. HFNC between 2013 and 2015, comparing the development in respiratory rate, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and heart rate, treatment failure, duration of treatment, and length of hospital stay. A sample size of 49 children were included. Median age was 1.9 months. Median baseline pCO₂ was 7.4 kPa in both groups, respiratory rate per minute was 57 vs. 58 (CPAP vs. HFNC). Respiratory rate decreased faster in the CPAP group (

Indexed as

bronchiolitischildrencontinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)high flow nasal cannula (HFNC)non-invasive ventilation

Identifiers

PMID28425965
PMCPMC5406687
OpenAlexW2610582458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.