SynthesisZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2020
[Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis].
Synthesis in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for premature infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Neonates: A Review of Current Evidence and Practices.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and Weipu Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus nCPAP in the treatment of neonatal RDS published up to April 1, 2020. RevMan5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis of the eligible RCTs.
resultsA total of 12 RCTs were included, with 2 861 neonates in total, among whom 2 698 neonates (94.30%) had a gestational age of ≥28 weeks and 163 (5.70%) had a gestational age of <28 weeks. For primary respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly higher rate of treatment failure than the nCPAP group (RR=1.86, 95%CI: 1.53-2.25, P<0.001), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (P=0.40) and the rate of use of pulmonary surfactant (P=0.77). For post-extubation respiratory support, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the treatment failure rate, reintubation rate, and total oxygen supply time (P>0.05). For primary respiratory support and post-extubation respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly lower incidence rate of nasal injury than the nCPAP group (P<0.001), and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the mortality rate and incidence rates of the complications such as air leak syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (P>0.05).
conclusionsBased on the current clinical evidence, HFNC has a higher failure rate than nCPAP when used as primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS, and therefore it is not recommended to use HFNC as the primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS. In RDS neonates with a gestational age of ≥28 weeks, HFNC can be used as post-extubation respiratory support in the weaning phase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33172549PMC7666385W3101552957What 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.