ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Use of NHFOV vs. NIPPV for the respiratory support of preterm newborns after extubation: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review.Neonatology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation Use in Romanian Neonatal Intensive Care Units-The Results of a Recent Survey.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for preterm newborns after extubation. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases from inception to August 28, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of NHFOV and NIPPV in newborns were included in the review and meta-analysis, which followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Results: Eight studies involving 1,603 patients were included. Compared with NIPPV, NHFOV could reduce the reintubation rates (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53, 0.86, Conclusion: In our study, compared with NIPPV, NHFOV seems to reduce the reintubation rates without increasing adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, definite recommendations cannot be made based on the quality of the published evidence.
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.