Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33596866›Full record

SynthesisBMC pediatrics2021

Oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure and high flow nasal cannula: a systematic review.

Angie Canning, Sally Clarke, Sarah Thorning, Manbir Chauhan, Kelly A Weir

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. A clinical consensus guideline for nutrition in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia from birth through discharge.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Guideline
  3. OcclusiveEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Swallowing and feeding of young children on high-flow oxygen therapy.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Angie CanningSpeech Pathology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, Australia. angie.canning@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7616-6731
Sally ClarkeQueensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Sarah ThorningLibrary Services, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Gold Cost, Australia.
Manbir ChauhanNewborn Care Unit, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, Australia.
Kelly A WeirAllied Health Sciences & Menzies Health Institute Queensland Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5042-1925
Gold Coast Health · AUChildren's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service · AUGold Coast Hospital · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to determine whether introduction of oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) respiratory support facilitates achievement of full oral feeding without adverse effects, compared to no oral feeding (NPO; nil per oral) on CPAP or HFNC.

methodsA protocol was lodged with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and AustHealth from database inception to 10th June 2020. Study population included children (preterm to < 18 years) on nCPAP or HFNC who were orally feeding. Primary outcomes included full or partial oral feeding and oropharyngeal aspiration. Secondary outcomes examined adverse events including clinical signs of aspiration, aspiration pneumonia and deterioration in respiratory status.

resultsThe search retrieved 1684 studies following duplicate removal. Title and abstract screening identified 70 studies for full text screening and of these, 16 were included in the review for data extraction. Methods of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) included nCPAP (n = 6), nCPAP and HFNC (n = 5) and HFNC (n = 5). A metanalysis was not possible as respiratory modes and cohorts were not comparable. Eleven studies reported on adverse events. Oral feeding safety was predominantly based on retrospective data from chart entries and clinical signs, with only one study using an instrumental swallow evaluation (VFSS) to determine aspiration status.

conclusionsFindings are insufficient to conclude whether commencing oral feeding whilst on nCPAP or HFNC facilitates transition to full oral feeding without adverse effects, including oropharyngeal aspiration. Further research is required to determine the safety and efficacy of oral feeding on CPAP and HFNC for infants and children.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number:  CRD42016039325 .

Indexed as

Continuous Positive Airway PressureNoninvasive VentilationCannulaChildHumansInfantInfant, NewbornOxygen Inhalation TherapyRetrospective StudiesHFNCnCPAPOral feedingPediatricSwallowing

Identifiers

PMID33596866
PMCPMC7887825
OpenAlexW3132712091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.