Trial reportIndian journal of pediatrics2024
Comparison of Efficacy of Pressure Controlled vs. Traditional Manual Mask Ventilation for Newborn Resuscitation - A Simulation-Based Pilot Randomized Control Trial.
Trial report in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Efficacy of Pressure Controlled vs. Traditional Manual Mask Ventilation for Newborn Resuscitation - A Simulation-Based Pilot Randomized Control Trial: Author's Reply.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Efficacy of Pressure Controlled vs. Traditional Manual Mask Ventilation for Newborn Resuscitation - A Simulation-Based Pilot Randomized Control Trial: Correspondence.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Refining Ventilation During Neonatal Resuscitation Using Ventilator: Time for a Well-Designed Clinical Study!Indian journal of pediatrics · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine efficacy of non-invasive positive pressure face mask ventilation using a ventilator device (NIPPmV) for achieving early effective ventilation compared to that by self-inflating bag (SIB) or T- piece resuscitator (TPR).
methodsThe authors video recorded 33 trained resuscitators using NIPPmV (provided using ventilator device), SIB [a 500 ml silicone SIB without a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) valve] and a TPR. Using a continuous pressure recording system and a neonatal manikin, the authors evaluated the efficacy of the ventilation to achieve early effective ventilation during 30 s of ventilation. The primary outcome was time to achieve effective chest rise. Secondary outcomes were peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), ventilation rate and the need to perform ventilation corrective steps during positive pressure ventilation (PPV) among the devices.
resultsTotal 99 videos were recorded. The time(s) taken to achieve the first chest rise was significantly lesser in NIPPmV group compared to SIB and TPR (3.0 ± 1.7 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 7.5 ± 5.4, respectively, p <0.001). The mean PIP delivered by NIPPmV compared to SIB & TPR (19.8 ± 1.6 vs. 35.6 ± 7.4 vs. 17.8 ± 2.0 cm H
conclusionsThe non-invasive positive pressure face mask ventilation using a ventilator (NIPPmV) resulted in achieving early, effective and consistent ventilation.
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.