ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Routine Tracheal Intubation and Meconium Suctioning in Non-Vigorous Neonates with Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Change in Neonatal Resuscitation Program Guidelines for Infants Born Through Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Meconium aspiration syndrome: a comprehensive review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is the comparison of endotracheal intubation and suctioning to immediate resuscitation without intubation of non-vigorous infants > 34 weeks’ gestation delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Randomized, non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Data sources were PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from 2012 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were non-vigorous infants born through MSAF with gestational age > 34 weeks and sample size ≥ 5. We calculated overall relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to determine the impact of endotracheal suction (ETS) in non-vigorous infants born through MSAF. The outcomes presented are the incidence of neonatal mortality, meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), transient tachypnea, need for positive pressure ventilation, respiratory support, persistent pulmonary hypertension treatment, neonatal infection, ischemic encephalopathy, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and the duration of hospitalization between ETS and non-ETS group. Six studies with a total sample of 1026 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistically non-significant difference was observed in RR between two groups with regards to mortality (1.22, 95% CI 0.73−2.04), occurrence of MAS (1.08, 95% CI 0.76−1.53) and other outcomes, and MD in hospitalization duration. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest initiating endotracheal suction soon after birth in non-vigorous meconium-stained infants as routine.
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.