Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as Therapy for Postextubation Respiratory Failure in Infants After Congenital Heart Surgery.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Clinical effectiveness of perioperative oxygen therapy strategies in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026
   Pooled it
2. Non-invasive high-frequency ventilation in newborn infants with respiratory distress.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
   Pooled it
3. The adverse effects of non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on the cerebral hemodynamics of premature infants: point-of-care brain ultrasound findings from a case-series study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026
   Article

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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as