Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2024
Tidal volume delivery during nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: infant cannula vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure prongs.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04326270 (Crossover Comparison of Tidal Volume Delivery During Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Crossover Comparison of Tidal Volume Delivery During Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Infants: Infant Cannula vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Prongs
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Time spent within the SpOBMJ open respiratory research · 2026Trial
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in neonates with grade 3 bronchopulmonary dysplasia.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo measure tidal volume delivery during nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation with two nasal interfaces: infant cannula and nasal prongs. STUDY
designA single-center crossover study of neonates with mild respiratory distress. Fifteen preterm neonates were randomized to initial interface of infant cannula or nasal prongs and monitored on a sequence of pressure settings first on the initial interface, then repeated on the alternate interface. We compared relative tidal volumes between the two interfaces with two-way repeated measures ANOVA during three breath types: synchronized (I), patient effort without ventilator breaths (II), and ventilator breaths without patient effort (III). Clinical trial #NCT04326270.
resultsType III breaths delivered no significant tidal volume. No significant difference was measured in relative tidal volume delivery between the interfaces when breath types were matched.
conclusionsNasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation delivers neither clinically nor statistically significant tidal volume with either infant cannula or nasal prongs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38129599What 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.