Trial reportBMC research notes2019
Hazards to avoid in future neonatal studies of nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation: lessons from an early terminated trial.
Trial report in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02340299 (Nasal High Frequency Oscillation Ventilation Versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to Reduce Post-extubation pCO2 in Very Low Birth Weight Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 8 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.
Nasal High Frequency Oscillation Ventilation Versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to Reduce Post-extubation pCO2 in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Postextubation use of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Eligible Infants Included in Neonatal Clinical Trials and Reasons for Noninclusion: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Non-invasive high-frequency ventilation in newborn infants with respiratory distress.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review.Pediatrics · 2023Pooled it
- Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary respiratory support strategies for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Eligibility Criteria and Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials That Include Infants Born Extremely Premature: A Systematic Review.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Non-invasive high-frequency oscillation ventilation versus nasal CPAP as primary respiratory support in preterm neonates ≥ 30 weeks with RDS: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Piloting the better research interactions for every family (BRIEF) researcher intervention to support recruitment for a neonatal clinical trial: parent experience and infant enrollment.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Urban-Suburban Differences in Public Perspectives on Digitalizing Pediatric Research: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the United States.The Journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation Use in Romanian Neonatal Intensive Care Units-The Results of a Recent Survey.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) started immediately after extubation of mechanically ventilated very low birth weight infants reduces the partial pressure of carbon dioxide at 72 h after extubation in comparison with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. This randomised controlled single-centre trial aimed to include 68 preterm infants at high risk of extubation failure.
resultsImplementation of the study protocol was feasible. However, from 2015 to 2017, only six patients could be recruited, leading to early termination of the trial. The slow recruitment was due to the introduction of new strategies to avoid endotracheal mechanical ventilation, which reduced the number of eligible infants. Moreover, the included infants failed their extubation more often than anticipated, thereby increasing the required sample size. Based on our single-centre experience, we provide information for study planning and discuss the specific requirements for future trial protocols on nHFOV. The extubation of high-risk infants into nHFOV could well be beneficial, but a multicentric approach is necessary to investigate this hypothesis. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02340299, on 16 January 2015.
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.