SynthesisMedicine2020
Nebulized versus invasively delivered surfactant therapy for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of the Effectiveness of Different Surfactant Administration Methods: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of leisure-time physical activity on depression and depressive symptoms in menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Laryngeal Mask for Minimally-invasive Surfactant Administration: A Narrative Review.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Review
- A survey of minimally invasive surfactant therapy in Canada.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2022Article
- Respiratory distress syndrome management in resource limited settings-Current evidence and opportunities in 2022.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary surfactant (PS) is commonly used for the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the role of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS, yet the results remained inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to conduct this meta-analysis to evaluate the effects and safety of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS in the treatment of NRDS.
methodsWe searched PubMed et al databases from inception date to May 15, 2020 for RCTs that compared nebulized vs invasively delivered PS. Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted data from the published articles. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome by means of fixed- or random-effects model.
resultsTwo RCTs with a total of 95 preterm neonates were identified, with 48 neonates received PS nebulization and 47 neonates undergone invasive PS administration. There was no significant difference in the SpO2 level (MD = -0.44, 95% CI -6.01 to 5.12) and the A/APaO2 level (MD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05) 1 hour after treatment among 2 groups. But the duration of mechanical ventilation in the nebulization groups was significantly less than that of invasive group (MD = -30.70, 95% CI -41.45 to 19.95).
conclusionsGiven the limited evidences, the effects and safety of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS still need further verification.
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.