ArticleTranslational pediatrics2022
Efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triggering modalities to synchronise non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Pooled it
- Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review.Neonatology · 2024Pooled it
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacies of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) are controversial. The reasons for controversy may be the selection bias of research objects and the small sample size. Methods: Literature retrieval was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and China Science Digital Library (CSDL) databases. Inclusion criteria: (I) literatures involving subjects who were newborns with RDS; (II) studies that had established both experimental and control groups; (III) the intervention measures of the experimental and control groups were NIPPV and NCPAP, respectively; (IV) the results included the incidence of intubation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), or mortality; and (V) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The chi-square test was applied for heterogeneity test. Publication bias assessment was conducted by funnel plot and Egger's test. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for individually randomized, parallel group trials (RoB2.0) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCT research. Results: A total of 10 literatures were included for analysis, including 1,104 patients, 557 in the NIPPV group and 547 in the NCPAP group. Among the literatures, 2 literatures had low risk of bias, 2 literatures had high risk of bias, and the rest had uncertain risk of bias. Compared to NCPAP, NIPPV reduced the incidence of neonatal intubation in RDS [risk ratio (RR) =0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.71, Z=5.11, P<0.00001]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.13, I Discussion: Compared with NCPAP, NIPPV can reduce the incidence of intubation, BPD, and mortality. The conclusions need to be confirmed via high-quality RCTs.
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.