Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35073407›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for neonates.

Vedanta Dariya, Luca Moresco, Matteo Bruschettini, Luc P Brion

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of Unplanned Extubations Associated with Orotracheal versus Nasotracheal Intubation in Infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Use of an airway bundle to reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Vedanta DariyaDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Luca MorescoPediatric and Neonatology Unit, Ospedale San Paolo, Savona, Italy.
Matteo BruschettiniDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Luc P BrionDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USOspedale San Paolo · ITSkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN

resultsWe identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm H AUTHORS'

conclusionsEvidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.

Indexed as

Intubation, IntratrachealHumansInfant, NewbornRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory SoundsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID35073407
PMCPMC8786207
OpenAlexW4207026782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.