Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32011661›Full record

SynthesisJAMA pediatrics2020

Sustained Inflation vs Standard Resuscitation for Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Elizabeth E Foglia, Arjan B Te Pas, Haresh Kirpalani, Peter G Davis, Louise S Owen, Anton H van Kaam, Wes Onland, Martin Keszler, Georg M Schmölzer, Helmut Hummler and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Singapore Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines 2021.Singapore medical journal · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.

Elizabeth E FogliaDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Arjan B Te PasDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Haresh KirpalaniDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Peter G DavisNewborn Research Center, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Louise S OwenNewborn Research Center, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anton H van KaamEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Wes OnlandEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Martin KeszlerDepartment of Pediatrics, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence.
Georg M SchmölzerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Helmut HummlerDepartment of Pediatrics, Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Gianluca ListaDepartment of Pediatrics, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Ospedale dei Bambini V.Buzzi ASST-FBF-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Carlo DaniDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Pharmacology and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Petrina BastrentaDepartment of Pediatrics, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Ospedale dei Bambini V.Buzzi ASST-FBF-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Russell LocalioDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Sarah J RatcliffeDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
University of Pennsylvania · USOspedale dei Bambini Vittore Buzzi · ITRoyal Women's Hospital · AUAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University · NLUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Virginia · USWomen & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island · US

Funding

Optimizing Respiratory Function in Delivery Room Resuscitation: The INFLATE Study (INFant Lung Aeration during Transition Events)K23HD084727 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FOGLIA, ELIZABETH · 2016 to 2020
$809k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD084727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Most preterm infants require respiratory support to establish lung aeration after birth. Intermittent positive pressure ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure are standard therapies. An initial sustained inflation (inflation time >5 seconds) is a widely practiced alternative strategy. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of sustained inflation vs intermittent positive pressure ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure for the prevention of hospital mortality and morbidity for preterm infants. Data Sources: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 24, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation that compared sustained inflation (inflation time >5 seconds) vs standard resuscitation with either intermittent positive pressure ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure were included. Studies including other cointerventions were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis of pooled outcome data used a fixed-effects model specific to rarer events. Subgroups were based on gestational age and study design (rescue vs prophylactic sustained inflation). Main Outcomes and Measures: Death before hospital discharge. Results: Nine studies recruiting 1406 infants met inclusion criteria. Death before hospital discharge occurred in 85 of 736 infants (11.5%) treated with sustained inflation and 62 of 670 infants (9.3%) who received standard therapy for a risk difference of 3.6% (95% CI, -0.7% to 7.9%). Although analysis of the primary outcome identified important heterogeneity based on gestational age subgroups, the 95% CI for the risk difference included 0 for each individual gestational age subgroup. There was no difference in the primary outcome between subgroups based on study design. Sustained inflation was associated with increased risk of death in the first 2 days after birth (risk difference, 3.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-5.3%). No differences in the risk of other secondary outcomes were identified. The quality-of-evidence assessment was low owing to risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusions and Relevance: There was no difference in the risk of the primary outcome of death before hospital discharge, and there was no evidence of efficacy for sustained inflation to prevent secondary outcomes. These findings do not support the routine use of sustained inflation for preterm infants after birth.

Indexed as

Infant, PrematureContinuous Positive Airway PressureHospital MortalityHumansInfant, NewbornInsufflationIntermittent Positive-Pressure VentilationRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornResuscitationSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID32011661
PMCPMC7042947
OpenAlexW3003656490

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.