Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31588974›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2019

Endotracheal suctioning for prevention of meconium aspiration syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Ashok Kumar, Preetam Kumar, Sriparna Basu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. RECOVER Guidelines: Newborn Resuscitation in Dogs and Cats. Clinical Guidelines.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001) · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Meconium-stained amniotic fluid.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Meconium aspiration syndrome: from pathophysiology to treatment.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Meconium aspiration syndrome: a comprehensive review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A retrospective cohort study of tracheal intubation for meconium suction in nonvigorous neonates.Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2022
    Article
  19. Singapore Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines 2021.Singapore medical journal · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashok KumarNeonatal Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India. ashokkumar_bhu@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2054-8463
Preetam KumarNeonatal Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India.
Sriparna BasuDepartment of Neonatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.
Institute of Medical Sciences · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current version of Neonatal Resuscitation Program no longer favors routine endotracheal suctioning (ETS) in non-vigorous newborns with meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) due to possibility of procedure-related harms and questionable benefits. However, it calls for additional research on this procedure to provide a definitive answer. The present study was conducted to evaluate the role of ETS in non-vigorous neonates of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through MSAF on the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). In this open-label randomized controlled trial, 132 non-vigorous neonates with MSAF were randomized to receive ETS (n = 66) or no-ETS (n = 66) during delivery room resuscitation (DRR). Primary outcome variable was incidence of MAS. Secondary outcome variables were requirement of DRR, need of respiratory support, development of complications, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. Both the groups were comparable with respect to maternal and neonatal characteristics. Incidence of MAS was 21 (31.8%) and 15 (22.7%) cases in ETS and no-ETS groups, respectively (relative risk (RR), 1.400, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.793-2.470). The two groups did not differ with regard to DRR, need for respiratory support, and development of complications. Nine (13.6%) neonates in ETS group, and 5 (7.5%) in no-ETS group died (p > 0.05). Median (interquartile range) duration of hospital stay was 54 (31-141) h and 44 (26-102) h in ETS and no-ETS groups, respectively (p > 0.05).Conclusions: Routine ETS at birth is not useful in preventing MAS in non-vigorous neonates of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through MSAF.Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2015/04/008819).What is Known:• Routine endotracheal suctioning is of questionable benefit in non-vigorous newborns with meconium stained amniotic fluid and may have a possibility of procedure-related harms.What is New:• Routine endotracheal suctioning at birth is not useful in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome in non-vigorous newborns of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through meconium stained amniotic fluid.

Indexed as

Intubation, IntratrachealFemaleGestational AgeHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornLength of StayMaleMeconium Aspiration SyndromeSuctionDelivery room resuscitationEndotracheal suctioningMeconium aspiration syndromeMeconium-stained amniotic fluid

Identifiers

PMID31588974
OpenAlexW2977530117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.