Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37856126›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Nasal Suctioning Therapy Among Infants With Bronchiolitis Discharged Home From the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Suzanne Schuh, Allan L Coates, Judy Sweeney, Maggie Rumantir, Mohamed Eltorki, Waleed Alqurashi, Amy C Plint, Roger Zemek, Naveen Poonai, Patricia C Parkin and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03361371 (Suctioning of NOse Therapy in Bronchiolitis - a Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT03361371 nacompletednot on this map

Suctioning of NOse Therapy in Bronchiolitis - a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenRan2020 to 2023Enrolled373ConditionsBronchiolitisArmsBattery operated nasal aspirator, Suction bulb
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne SchuhDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Allan L CoatesResearch Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Judy SweeneyResearch Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maggie RumantirResearch Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mohamed EltorkiDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Waleed AlqurashiDepartment of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Amy C PlintDepartment of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Roger ZemekDepartment of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Naveen PoonaiDepartment of Paediatrics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Patricia C ParkinResearch Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Diane SoaresDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rahim MoineddinDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yaron FinkelsteinDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) Network
University of Toronto · CAResearch Canada · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAMcMaster Children's Hospital · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although nasal suctioning is the most frequently used supportive management for bronchiolitis, its benefit remains unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced vs minimal nasal suctioning in treating infants with bronchiolitis after discharge from the emergency department (ED). Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 6, 2020, to December 15, 2022, at 4 tertiary-care Canadian pediatric EDs. Participants included otherwise healthy infants aged 1 to 11 months with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis who were discharged home from the ED. Interventions: Participants were randomized to minimal suctioning via bulb or enhanced suctioning via a battery-operated device before feeding for 72 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was additional resource use, a composite of unscheduled revisits for bronchiolitis or use of additional suctioning devices for feeding and/or breathing concerns. Secondary outcomes included health care utilization, feeding and sleeping adequacy, and satisfaction. Results: Of 884 screened patients, 352 were excluded for criteria, 79 declined participation, 81 were otherwise excluded, 372 were randomized (185 to the minimal suction group and 187 to the enhanced suction group), and 367 (median [IQR] age, 4 [2-6] months; 221 boys [60.2%]) completed the trial (184 in the minimal suction and 183 in the enhanced suction group). Additional resource use occurred for 68 of 184 minimal suction participants (37.0%) vs 48 of 183 enhanced suction participants (26.2%) (absolute risk difference, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.20; P = .03). Unscheduled revisits occurred for 47 of 184 minimal suction participants (25.5%) vs 40 of 183 enhanced suction participants (21.9%) (absolute risk difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.12; P = .46). A total of 33 of 184 parents in the minimal suction group (17.9%) used additional suctioning devices vs 11 of 183 parents in the enhanced suction group (6.0%) (absolute risk difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.19; P < .001). No significant between-group differences were observed for all bronchiolitis revisits (absolute risk difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.16; P = .15), ED revisits (absolute risk difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12; P = .30), parental care satisfaction (absolute risk difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.06; P = .70), and changes from baseline to 72 hours in normal feeding (difference in differences, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.17; P = .62), normal sleeping (difference in differences, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.18; P = .47), or normal parental sleeping (difference in differences, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23; P = .09). Parents in the minimal suction group were less satisfied with the assigned device (62 of 184 [33.7%]) than parents in the enhanced suction group (145 of 183 [79.2%]) (risk difference, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with minimal suctioning, enhanced suctioning after ED discharge with bronchiolitis did not alter the disease course because there were no group differences in revisits or feeding and sleeping adequacy. Minimal suctioning resulted in higher use of nonassigned suctioning devices and lower parental satisfaction with the assigned device. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03361371.

Indexed as

BronchiolitisPatient DischargeCanadaEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInfantMaleSingle-Blind MethodSuction

Identifiers

PMID37856126
PMCPMC10587796
OpenAlexW4387765355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.