ArticleMedicine2020
The safety and effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula as an initial ventilation method in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study uses a method of systematic evaluation to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) as an initial ventilation method in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) scientifically. In the field of evidence-based medicine, this study provides a theoretical reference and basis for choosing appropriate initial non-invasive ventilation methods in the treatment of NRDS, thereby providing assistance for clinical treatment.
methodsThe main electronic network databases were searched by computer, including 4 Chinese databases: CNKI, WangFang Data, CQVIP, SinoMed and 3 English databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EMBASE, the time range of retrieval from the beginning of each database to September 1, 2020. The content involves all the published randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with NCPAP as an initial ventilation method in the treatment of NRDS. Using a search method that combines medical subject words and free words. Based on the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool, 2 researchers independently screen the literature, and then extract the data we needed in the literature, and cross-check. If it is difficult to decide whether to include literature, then turning to a third researcher for help and making a final decision after discussion, and using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 to analyze the relative data.
resultsBased on the method of meta-analysis, this study analyzes the pre-determined outcome indicators through scientific statistical analysis, and compares the effectiveness and safety of HHHFNC compared with NCPAP as an initial ventilation method in the treatment of NRDS. All results will be published in peer-reviewed high-quality professional academic journals.
conclusionBased on evidence-based medicine, this study will obtain the establishing evidence of comparison that the clinical effectiveness and safety of HHHFNC compared with NCPAP as an initial ventilation method in the treatment of NRDS through the existing data and data, which provides the evidence support of evidence-based medicine in the treatment of NRDS. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: September 17, 2020. osf.io/f6at4 (https://osf.io/f6at4).
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.