ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2019
Volume-targeted versus pressure-limited ventilation for preterm infants.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-frequency oscillatory ventilation with volume guarantee in infants: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the effects of volume-targeted ventilation (VTV) with pressure-limited ventilation (PLV) in preterm infants.
methodsA total of 100 preterm infants who required mechanical ventilation during the two study periods were investigated. PLV was used for 50 preterm infants during period 1 and VTV was used for 50 preterm infants during period 2. Clinical outcomes including mortality rate, duration of mechanical ventilation, air leak syndrome, hypocarbia, hypercarbia, hypoxemia, combined outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage, and retinopathy of prematurity were evaluated.
resultsThere was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the duration of mechanical ventilation, air leak syndrome, hypocarbia, hypoxemia, or BPD between the two study groups. The mortality rate, hypercarbia, and combined outcome of death or BPD were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the VTV group compared with the PLV group.
conclusionPreterm infants using VTV had a lower mortality rate, less hypercarbia, and a significant decrease in the combined outcome of death or BPD.
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.