Trial reportBMC pediatrics2021
Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants as primary mode: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic scoping review of the use of surfactant replacement therapy for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm neonates in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of different noninvasive ventilation strategies for postextubation respiratory support in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome: 2022 Update.Neonatology · 2023Guideline
- Article
- Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
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
backgroundThe most common cause of respiratory failure in premature infants is respiratory distress syndrome. Historically, respiratory distress syndrome has been treated by intratracheal surfactant injection followed by mechanical ventilation. In view of the risk of pulmonary injury associated with mechanical ventilation and subsequent chronic pulmonary lung disease, less invasive treatment modalities have been suggested to reduce pulmonary complications.
methods148 neonates (with gestational age of 28 to 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahwaz in 2018 were enrolled in this clinical trial study. 74 neonates were assigned to duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) group and 74 neonates to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The primary outcome in this study was failure of N-DUOPAP and NCPAP treatments within the first 72 h after birth and secondary outcomes included treatment complications.
resultsthere was not significant difference between DUOPAP (4.1 %) and NCPAP (8.1 %) in treatment failure at the first 72 h of birth (p = 0.494), but non-invasive ventilation time was less in the DUOPAP group (p = 0.004). There were not significant differences in the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), apnea and mortality between the two groups. Need for repeated doses of surfactant (p = 0.042) in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group. The duration of oxygen therapy in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.034). Also, the duration of hospitalization in the NDUOPAP group was shorter than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.002).
conclusionsIn the present study, DUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of birth, but the duration of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen demand, the need for multiple doses of surfactant and length of stay in the DUOPAP group were less than those in the CPAP group.
trial registrationIRCT20180821040847N1 , Approved on 2018-09-10.
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.