Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32218494›Full record

ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2020

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus noninvasive NAVA in preterm neonates with apnea of prematurity: a pilot study with a novel approach.

Kimberly Firestone, Bassel Al Horany, Laurence de Leon-Belden, Howard Stein

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Immature control of breathing and apnea of prematurity: the known and unknown.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    Review
  10. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly FirestoneAkron Children's Hospital, Akron, OH, USA.
Bassel Al HoranyValley Children's Hospital, Madera, CA, USA.
Laurence de Leon-BeldenProMedica Russell J. Ebeid Children's Hospital, Toledo, OH, USA.
Howard SteinProMedica Russell J. Ebeid Children's Hospital, Toledo, OH, USA. howardstein@bex.net.
ProMedica Russell J. Ebeid Children's Hospital · USAkron Children's Hospital · USChildren's Hospital Central California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeonates with apnea of prematurity often fail CPAP because it does not provide adequate support during apnea. NAVA provides proportional ventilator support based on electrical activity of the diaphragm. When the NAVA level is 0 cmH

methodsRetrospective study of preterm neonates having apnea of prematurity on nasal CPAP. Patients were then placed on NAVA level 0. The number of events on each mode was collected. Statistics were paired t-test.

resultsSeventeen subjects with gestational age 26.1 ± 1.7 weeks, study age 19.5 ± 12.5 days. Events decreased from 17.9 ± 7.8 on CPAP to 10.2 ± 8.1 events on NAVA level 0 (p = 0.00047).

conclusionsNAVA level 0 reduced the number of clinically significant events compared with CPAP in premature neonates with apnea of prematurity.

Indexed as

Interactive Ventilatory SupportNoninvasive VentilationAdultApneaContinuous Positive Airway PressureHumansInfant, NewbornPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32218494
PMCPMC7223609
OpenAlexW3014073016

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.