ArticleClinical medicine insights. Pediatrics2023
Outpatient Utilization of the RAM Cannula for Nasal Noninvasive Ventilation in Children.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation via RAM Cannula in Pediatric Intensive Care: A Preliminary Report.International journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The RAM cannula Objectives: This study aimed to describe the clinical features and outcomes of children who used NIV via RAM cannula in the outpatient setting. Design: Retrospective review. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of children treated with outpatient NIV via RAM cannula at our institution between January 2010 and March 2023. The analyzed data included age, diagnoses, indications for NIV, duration of RAM cannula use, complications, and outcomes at 6 months. Results: We identified 20 patients who used outpatient NIV via RAM cannula during the study period. The median age at initiation of NIV via RAM cannula was 5.8 months (IQR 2.4-9.9 months). Indications for NIV included sleep-related hypoventilation (15%), restrictive lung disease (25%), obstructive sleep apnea (45%), and chronic respiratory failure (50%), with 6 patients having ⩾2 indications for NIV. RAM cannula was utilized for inability to tolerate conventional NIV interfaces (80%), to alleviate dyspnea (60%), and to avoid tracheostomy (55%). Patients used NIV via RAM cannula for a median duration of 7.7 months (IQR 3.7-20.6 months). Patient outcomes included ongoing usage of RAM cannula (55%), changing to conventional NIV interfaces (15%) or oxygen (10%), weaning off respiratory support (5%), and death (15%). There were no complications related to using the RAM cannula. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the utility of outpatient NIV via RAM cannula in children with a variety of diagnoses until clinical improvement or tolerance of conventional interfaces, and for avoidance of tracheostomy.
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.