Observational studyJornal de pediatria
Comparison of the effectiveness of different high-flow devices in neonatal care.
Observational study in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the success rate of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy using an adapted obsolete mechanical ventilator (MV), Optiflow™ and Vapotherm™ in newborns (NBs).
methodThis was a retrospective observational study conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The sample comprised NBs who underwent HFNC therapy due to ventilatory dysfunction, for weaning from non-invasive ventilation (NIV), or post-extubation. The three groups, stratified according to gestational age (GA) and birth weight, and corrected GA and weight at the beginning of HFNC use, were as follows: Optiflow ™, Vapotherm ™, and obsolete Mechanical Ventilator (MV) adapted for high flow therapy. Subsequently, the NBs were divided into a success group (SG) and a failure group (FG). HFNC success was defined as a therapy duration exceeding 72 h.
resultsA total of 209 NBs were evaluated, with 31.1 % using HFNC due to ventilatory dysfunction, 2.4 % after extubation, and 66.5 % after NIV weaning. HFNC success rate was observed in 90.9 % of the NBs, with no difference between equipment types (Vapotherm ™, Optiflow ™, and adapted VM).
conclusionDifferent types of HFNC equipment are equally effective when used in neonatology for respiratory dysfunction, as a method of weaning from NIV and post-extubation. Adapted obsolete MV can be an alternative for HFCN therapy in resource-constrained settings.
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.