Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32526766›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2021

T-piece resuscitator or self-inflating bag during neonatal resuscitation: a scoping review.

Charles Christoph Roehr, Peter Graham Davis, Gary Marshall Weiner, J Jonathan Wyllie, Myra Helen Wyckoff, Daniele Trevisanuto

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Nationwide survey on neonatal resuscitation across delivery facilities in Japan.Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society
    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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Charles Christoph RoehrNewborn Services, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. charles.roehr@ouh.nhs.uk.
Peter Graham DavisDepartment of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Gary Marshall WeinerDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Jonathan WyllieDepartment of Neonatology, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Myra Helen WyckoffDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Daniele TrevisanutoDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
James Cook University Hospital · GBRoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify the evidence for administering positive pressure ventilation (PPV) to infants at birth by either T-piece resuscitator (TPR) or self-inflating bag (SIB), and to determine whether a full systematic review (SR) is warranted.

methodsGuided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, eligible studies included peer-reviewed human studies, prospectively or retrospectively comparing a TPR vs. SIB for administering PPV at birth. Databases searched were OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review Manager software was used for the data analysis.

resultsFollowing electronic literature search and review, data from four eligible studies (3 RCT and 1 observational study), enrolling a total of 2889 patients, were included. Studies differed regarding the investigated populations, reported outcomes and came from different geographical areas. In particular for preterm infants, use of TPR for providing PPV may improve survival, result in fewer intubations at birth and decrease the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

conclusionsThis scoping review identified two new studies with substantive new evidence, pointing towards improved survival, decreased bronchopulmonary dysplasia and fewer intubations at birth, in particular among preterm infants treated with TPR. Full SR of the literature is advised. IMPACT: This scoping review identified studies comparing TPR vs. SIB for respiratory support of newborn infants previously not included in the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommendations. Our review found substantive new evidence highlighting that device choice may impact the outcomes of compromised newborn infants'. This scoping review stipulates the need for full SR and updated meta-analysis of studies investigating supportive equipment for stabilizing infants at birth in order to inform ILCOR treatment recommendations.

Indexed as

Bronchopulmonary DysplasiaClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureObservational Studies as TopicPositive-Pressure RespirationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialResuscitationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32526766
OpenAlexW3034730979

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.