Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327391›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2024

RAM Cannula Versus Bi-Nasal Prongs as Respiratory Device Interfaces in Neonates of Thirty-Two or More Weeks of Gestation With Respiratory Distress: The First "ProRAM" Randomized Trial Report.

Manar Al-Lawama, Bayan Alaraj, Mahmoud Abu Zahra, Ibtehal AlHasanat, Heba Habash, AbdelKareem Alhyari, Leen Alshajrawi, Sallam Jaafreh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. OcclusiveEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Manar Al-LawamaPediatric Department, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Bayan AlarajPediatric Department, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Mahmoud Abu ZahraPediatric Department, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Ibtehal AlHasanatPediatric Department, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Heba HabashPediatric Department, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
AbdelKareem AlhyariSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Leen AlshajrawiSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Sallam JaafrehSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Using bilateral short nasal prongs as an interface for noninvasive respiratory support is challenging, and it is associated with nasal injury. We aimed to compare RAM cannula with nasal prongs in delivering noninvasive ventilation to newborn infants. Methods: This is a single-center randomized trial (trial registry: ISRCTN10561691). The setting involves a tertiary neonatal unit with a capacity of 30 beds and more than 13 years of experience in neonatal noninvasive ventilation. We included 50 infants born at ≥ 32 weeks of gestation, who had respiratory distress at birth. We excluded those with major congenital anomalies and those who required intubation in the delivery room. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV); other outcomes included air leak and nasal injury rate. The infants were assigned using randomly generated numbers into bi-nasal prong and RAM canula groups in a 1:1 ratio. Results: Two and four babies in the RAM and prong groups, respectively, were upgraded to NIPPV (P = 0.600). One versus no baby in the RAM vs. prong groups was intubated (P = 1.000). Newborns in the prong group required oxygen support for a longer period (mean duration: 154.6 ± 255.2 h) than those in the RAM group (40.7 ± 72.6 h, P = 0.030). None of the patients in the RAM group had traumatic nasal injury compared to five babies in the prong group (P = 0.050). Four babies in our study developed air leaks, with two in each group. Conclusions: The use of RAM cannula in delivering noninvasive ventilation to newborns ≥ 32 weeks of age did not affect the noninvasive ventilation failure rate or incidence of air leak. The use was associated with a shorter duration of respiratory support and a reduced risk of nasal septal injury.

Indexed as

Nasal prongsNeonatesNoninvasive ventilationRAM canulaRespiratory distress

Identifiers

PMID38327391
PMCPMC10846486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.