Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36425449›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2022

Respiratory function monitoring during neonatal resuscitation: A systematic review.

Janene H Fuerch, Marta Thio, Louis P Halamek, Helen G Liley, Myra H Wyckoff, Yacov Rabi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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.

Janene H FuerchStanford University Medical Center, Division of Neonatology, 453 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.
Marta ThioDepartment of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Louis P HalamekStanford University Medical Center, Division of Neonatology, 453 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.
Helen G LileyMater Research Institute and Mater Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Myra H WyckoffDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
Yacov RabiUniversity of Calgary, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Positive pressure ventilation via a facemask is critical in neonatal resuscitation, but frequently results in mask leak, obstruction, and inadequate respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to determine whether the display of respiratory function monitoring improved resuscitation or clinical outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes when respiratory function monitoring was displayed versus not displayed for newborns requiring positive pressure ventilation at birth were selected and from databases (last search August 2022), and assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools for randomized control trials. The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Treatment recommendations were approved by the Neonatal Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Results reported primary and secondary outcomes and included resuscitation and clinical outcomes. Results: Of 2294 unique articles assessed for eligibility, three randomized controlled trials were included (observational studies excluded) (n = 443 patients). For predefined resuscitation and clinical outcomes, these studies either did not report the primary outcome (time to heart rate ≥ 100 bpm from birth), had differing reporting methods (achieving desired tidal volumes, significant mask leak) or did not find significant differences (intubation rate, air leaks, death before hospital discharge, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, chronic lung disease). Limitations included limited sample size for critical outcomes, inconsistent definitions amongst studies and unreported long-term outcomes. Conclusion: Although respiratory function monitoring has been utilized in clinical care, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest its benefit for newborn infants receiving respiratory support for resuscitation at birth. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021278169 (registered November 27, 2021). Funding: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation provided support that included access to software platforms and teleconferencing.

Indexed as

CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health LiteratureECG, electrocardiogramGRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and EvaluationsGrading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)ILCOR, International Liaison Committee on ResuscitationInternational Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR)Neonatal Life Support Task Force (NLS TF)Neonatal resuscitationNICU, neonatal intensive care unitNLS TF, Neonatal Life Support Task ForcePositive pressure ventilation (PPV)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysesRCTs, randomized controlled trialsRespiratory function monitoringR F M, Respiratory Function MonitoringRoB, risk of bias

Identifiers

PMID36425449
PMCPMC9678959

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.