Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314953›Full record

ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2022

Comparison Between Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula as Postextubation Respiratory Support in Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Catarina Martins, Rita Pissarra, Sandra Costa, Henrique Soares, Hercília Guimarães

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catarina MartinsFaculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Rita PissarraFaculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Department of Pediatrics, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Sandra CostaFaculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Department of Neonatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Henrique SoaresFaculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Department of Neonatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Hercília GuimarãesDepartment of Neonatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Hospital de São João · PTUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe interest in noninvasive respiratory support has been increasing, including continuous positive airway pressure and recent respiratory methods, namely high-flow nasal cannula. It is discussed if high-flow nasal cannula can reduce continuous positive airway pressure or invasive ventilation use. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal cannula as postextubation respiratory support in neonates. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search, based on Preferred Reporting of Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science in 15 years (2006-2021) assessing randomized controlled trials that compared continuous positive airway pressure with high-flow nasal cannula as postextubation interventions in neonates. The primary outcome was extubation failure at 72 hours and/or at 7 days and the secondary outcomes included air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, nasal trauma, abdominal distension, and mortality.

resultsSeven studies were included, comprising 1044 neonates. No statistically significant differences were found between high-flow nasal cannula and continuous positive airway pressure in extubation failure (at 72 hours and 7 days), air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, abdominal distension, and mortality. High-flow nasal cannula was associated with a lower incidence of nasal trauma (odds ratio = 0.21; 95% CI 0.08-0.52; P = .0008). Studies assessing extreme premature infants (<28 weeks) raised some efficacy and safety concerns.

conclusionHigh-flow nasal cannula may be as effective and safe as continuous positive airway pressure, with similar extubation failure and risk of air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, abdominal distension, and mortality with the advantage of less nasal trauma. High-flow nasal cannula should be considered as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure in postextubation settings in neonates. Further studies are needed to establish efficacy and safety in lower gestational ages.

Identifiers

PMID36314953
PMCPMC9682860
OpenAlexW4307243995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.