Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291395›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Nasal Cannula with Long and Narrow Tubing for Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pratima Anand, Monika Kaushal, Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Abdul Kareem Pullattayil S, Abdul Razak, Daniele Trevisanuto

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. OcclusiveEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  4. 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 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Pratima AnandDivision of Neonatology, Department of Paediatrics, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi 110029, India.
Monika KaushalDepartment of Neonatology, Emirates Speciality Hospital, Dubai P.O. Box 505240, United Arab Emirates.
Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry RamaswamyDepartment of Neonatology, Ankura Hospital for Women and Children, Hyderabad 520072, India.
Abdul Kareem Pullattayil SHealth Sciences Library, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-5228
Abdul RazakDivision of Neonatology, Department of Paediatrics, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz University Hospital, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-6185-3694
Daniele TrevisanutoDepartment of Woman and Child Health, University of Padua, University Hospital of Padua, 35128 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6462-0079
Dubai Hospital · AENiloufer Hospital · INPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SAQueen's University · CAUniversity of Padua · ITVardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCannulas with long and narrow tubing (CLNT) are increasingly being used as an interface for noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) in preterm neonates; however, their efficacy compared to commonly used nasal interfaces such as short binasal prongs (SBP) and nasal masks (NM) has not been widely studied. MATERIAL AND

methodsMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating the efficacy of CLNT compared to SBP or NM in preterm neonates requiring NRS for primary respiratory and post-extubation support. A random-effects meta-analysis was used for data synthesis.

resultsThree RCTs and three observational studies were included. Clinical benefit or harm could not be ruled out for the outcome of need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for CLNT versus SBP or NM [relative risk (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-3.04, certainty of evidence (CoE) low]. The results were also inconclusive for the outcome of treatment failure [RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.48-3.01, CoE very low]. Oropharyngeal pressure transmission was possibly lower with CLNT compared to other interfaces [MD -1.84 cm H20, 95% CI -3.12 to -0.56, CoE very low]. Clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded with CLNT compared to SBP or NM for the outcomes of duration of IMV, nasal trauma, receipt of surfactant, air leak, and NRS duration.

conclusionVery low to low CoE and statistically nonsignificant results for the clinical outcomes precluded us from making any reasonable conclusions; however, the use of CLNT as an NRS interface, compared to SBP or NM, possibly transmits lower oropharyngeal pressures. We suggest adequately powered multicentric RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of CLNT when compared to other interfaces.

Indexed as

nasal cannulaneonatenoninvasive respiratory supportpreterm infantrespiratory distresssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36291395
PMCPMC9600105
OpenAlexW4297149743

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.