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.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- HHHFNC Versus NIPPV Delivered by Long Narrow Cannula in Preterm Infants: Randomized Noninferiority Trial.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Trial
- OcclusiveEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Non-invasive ventilation in neonates: a review of current literature.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
6 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.