Observational studyThe Journal of pediatrics2017
Early Caffeine Prophylaxis and Risk of Failure of Initial Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.
Observational study 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 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Administration time of caffeine in preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Pooled it
- Confounding biases in studies on early- versus late-caffeine in preterm infants: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2020Pooled it
- Protective Effects of Early Caffeine Administration in Hyperoxia-Induced Neurotoxicity in the Juvenile Rat.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Optimizing respiratory management in preterm infants: a review of adjuvant pharmacotherapies.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Review
- Indications for and Risks of Noninvasive Respiratory Support.Neonatology · 2021Review
- Caffeine in preterm infants: where are we in 2020?ERJ open research · 2020Review
- Prospective observational study of early respiratory management in preterm neonates less than 35 weeks of gestation.BMC pediatrics · 2019Observational
- Fine Tuning Non-invasive Respiratory Support to Prevent Lung Injury in the Extremely Premature Infant.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test the hypothesis that early caffeine treatment on the day of birth, compared with later treatment in very low birth weight (VLBW, <1500 g) infants receiving continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, is associated with a decreased risk of CPAP failure in the first week of life. STUDY
designMulticenter, observational cohort study in 366 US neonatal intensive care units. We evaluated inborn, VLBW infants discharged from 2000 to 2014, who received only CPAP therapy without surfactant treatment on day of life (DOL) 0, had a 5-minute Apgar ≥3, and received caffeine in the first week of life. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the risk of CPAP failure, defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or surfactant therapy on DOL 1-6, by timing of caffeine treatment as either early (initiation on DOL 0) or routine (initiation on DOL 1-6).
resultsWe identified 11 133 infants; 4528 (41%) received early caffeine and 6605 (59%) received routine caffeine. Median gestational age was lower in the early caffeine group, 29 weeks (25th, 75th percentiles; 28, 30) vs the routine caffeine group, 30 weeks (29, 31); P < 0.001. The incidence of CPAP failure on DOL 1-6 was similar between the early and routine caffeine groups: 22% vs 21%; adjusted OR = 1.05 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.18).
conclusionsEarly caffeine treatment on the day of birth was not associated with a decreased risk of CPAP failure in the first week of life for VLBW infants initially treated with CPAP.
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.