ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2020
Does crossover treatment of control subjects invalidate results of randomized trials of patent ductus arteriosus treatment?
Review 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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the association between patent ductus arteriosus approach and neurodevelopment in extremely preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Transcatheter closure in preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus: feasibility, results, hemodynamic monitoring and future prospectives.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2023Review
- The patent ductus arteriosus management debate: it's not over yet.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in extremely preterm infants remains controversial. There is paucity of evidence on the benefits of PDA treatment in reducing mortality and morbidities in extremely preterm infants. Failure of randomized clinical trials to demonstrate beneficial effects of PDA treatment on outcomes has often been attributed to open treatment of control subjects. This perspective examines the PDA treatment trials to date, with specific focus on rates of and ages of subjects at open rescue treatment. Although these trials demonstrate that ductal closure is significantly increased with treatment, that does not translate to a significant decrease in major morbidities or mortality in premature infants, even when trials with high rates of rescue treatment of controls are excluded. Trials in which enrollment occurred after 7 days of age include insufficient numbers of subjects to evaluate this relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.