Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722478›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Sonographic Evaluation of the Endotracheal Tube Position in the Neonatal Population: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sabrina Congedi, Federica Savio, Maria Auciello, Sabrina Salvadori, Daniel Nardo, Luca Bonadies

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. FOCUS more on POCUS.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sabrina CongediDepartment of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Federica SavioDepartment of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Maria AucielloDepartment of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Sabrina SalvadoriNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Department of Woman's and Child's Health, Padova University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Daniel NardoNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Department of Woman's and Child's Health, Padova University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Luca BonadiesDepartment of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation in neonates is challenging and requires a high level of precision, due to narrow and short airways, especially in preterm newborns. The current gold standard for endotracheal tube (ETT) verification is chest X-ray (CXR); however, this method presents some limitations, such as ionizing radiation exposure and delayed in obtaining the radiographic images, that point of care ultrasound (POCUS) could overcome. Primary Objective: To evaluate ultrasound efficacy in determining ETT placement adequacy in preterm and term newborns. Secondary Objective: To compare the time required for ultrasound confirmation vs. time needed for other standard of care methods. Search Methods: A search in Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. Our most recent search was conducted in September 2021 including the following keywords: "newborn", "infant", "neonate", "endotracheal intubation", "endotracheal tube", "ultrasonography", "ultrasound". Selection Criteria: We considered randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, prospective, retrospective and cross-sectional studies published after 2012, involving neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients needing intubation/intubated infants and evaluating POCUS efficacy and/or accuracy in detecting ETT position vs. a defined gold-standard method. Three review authors independently assessed the studies' quality and extracted data. Main Results: We identified 14 eligible studies including a total of 602 ETT evaluations in NICU or in the delivery room. In about 80% of cases the gold standard for ETT position verification was CXR. Ultrasound was able to identify the presence of ETT in 96.8% of the evaluations, with a pooled POCUS sensitivity of 93.44% (95% CI: 90.4-95.75%) in detecting an appropriately positioned ETT as assessed by CXR. Bedside ultrasound confirmation was also found to be significantly faster compared to obtaining a CXR. Conclusion: POCUS appears to be a fast and effective technique to identify correct endotracheal intubation in newborns. This review could add value and importance to the use of this promising technique.

Indexed as

endotracheal intubationinfantneonatenewbornPOCUSultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35722478
PMCPMC9201277
OpenAlexW4281805238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.