ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2019
Nasal Injury with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: Need for "Privileging" Nursing Staff.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2019. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effect of High-Frequency Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation on the Work of Breathing and Postoperative Pulmonary Complication after Pediatric Congenital Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2024Trial
- Nasal Injuries Related to Respiratory Support Interfaces in Preterm Infants: Neonatal Course and 12-Month Outcome.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Impasse On Nasal Interfaces For Non-Invasive Ventilation: Time To Move On?Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Reporting nasal pressure injuries in neonates receiving non-invasive ventilation: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Neonates: A Review of Current Evidence and Practices.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUse of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in neonates is associated with nasal injury (NI) for which various risk factors related to the neonatal characteristics and properties of interfaces used have been reported. "Privileging" of nursing staff may influence safety and incidence of adverse events. In this prospective cohort study, authors studied the incidence of NI and risk factors for NI in babies requiring CPAP after privileging staff for CPAP care bundles.
methodsAll neonates on CPAP over a 6-mo period were included. Standard operating procedures were formulated and staff of NICU (nurses and doctors) were educated at the start of the study and periodically in 6 comprehensive areas of care- encompassing position of head, prongs and cap; nasal suctioning and interruptions in pressure on the nose. The staff who completed the training and evaluation were declared as "privileged". NI (measured by a standard staging) and risk factors were predefined and studied.
resultsOf the 51 babies who required respiratory supports, 35 required CPAP care. Nine babies (25%) out of 35 who required CPAP had NI (2, 4, 3 babies had stages 1, II and III of NI respectively). Seventy seven percent of babies were cared for by privileged nurses. NI was significantly higher when cared for by non-privileged staff (66% vs. 11%, unadjusted RR = 6.75, 95%CI 2.16-21.09). All other risk factors were not significant.
conclusionsNI was noted in 25% neonates on CPAP, and those cared for by non-privileged staff had higher chances of NI. Quality processes and emphasis on continued monitoring and evaluation of nursing skills may help prevent these untoward complications.
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.