ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Efficacy of CPAP in Neonates with Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review.Neonatology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Ranibizumab for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn neonates with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may be more beneficial compared to endotracheal intubation (ETI). We evaluated the efficacy of CPAP in neonates with MAS.
methodsFour engines were used to search randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We used relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to assess the effect on dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. In addition, we used the Paule-Mandel (PM) random effects model due to the anticipated lack of events.
resultsThree RCTs were included (
conclusionsIn patients with MAS, there is no significant effect of CPAP use compared to ETI on primary, specifically on mortality, need for ventilation, the incidence of pneumothorax, and secondary outcomes.
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.