Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31828052›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2019

Considering the Validity of the SAIL Trial-A Navel Gazers Guide to the SAIL Trial.

Haresh Kirpalani, Martin Keszler, Elizabeth E Foglia, Peter Davis, Sarah Ratcliffe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Haresh KirpalaniDivision of Neonatology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Martin KeszlerDepartment of Pediatrics, Warren Alpert Medical School, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
Elizabeth E FogliaDivision of Neonatology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Peter DavisNewborn Research Centre, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sarah RatcliffeDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
Philadelphia University · USRoyal Women's Hospital · AUUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Virginia · USWomen & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island · US

Funding

The SAIL trial [Sustained Aeration of Infant Lungs]U01HD072906 · NICHD · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI KESZLER, MARTIN, KIRPALANI, HARESH · 2013 to 2017
$5.5M
NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD072906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores the validity of the Sustained Aeration Inflation for Infant Lungs (SAIL) randomized controlled clinical trial. The SAIL trial enrolled 460 infants out of a planned 600, but the trial was stopped early for harm. We ask here, whether there were any threats to validity in the trial as conducted. We then explore what design elements of the trial could have been improved upon. Finally, we consider what the implications are for future trials in this arena.

Indexed as

clinical trialdeliveryevidence based practicemethodological recommendationsnewbornpretermresuscitationsustained inflation

Identifiers

PMID31828052
PMCPMC6890806
OpenAlexW2991192383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.