SynthesisNeonatology2024
High Flow Nasal Cannula for Weaning Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neonatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Clinically Directed Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to High Flow Nasal Cannula Transitions in Stable Preterm Infants Using Electrical Impedance Tomography: A Prospective, Observational Study.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Observational
- Noninvasive Ventilation Strategies in Neonates.Indian pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to systematically review the benefits and harms of using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for weaning continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support in preterm infants.
methodsCochrane Central, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 15, 2023. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing weaning CPAP using HFNC versus weaning CPAP alone and evaluating predefined outcomes were included. Two authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane GRADE.
resultsAmong 843 identified records, seven RCTs involving 781 preterm infants were eligible for analysis. The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in duration of respiratory support when using HFNC for weaning compared to weaning CPAP alone (mean difference (95% confidence interval) 3.52 (-0.02, 7.05); 5 RCTs; participants = 488; I2 = 29%). The evidence certainty was downgraded to low due to study limitations and imprecision. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, except for a lower occurrence of nasal trauma with HFNC for weaning CPAP compared to weaning CPAP alone (relative risk (95% confidence interval) 0.61 (0.38, 0.99); 4 RCTs; participants = 335; I2 = 0%). The evidence certainty for the secondary outcomes was low to very low.
conclusionLow certainty of evidence suggests using HFNC for weaning CPAP in preterm infants may not impact the duration of respiratory support. Caution is advised when considering HFNC for weaning CPAP, especially in extremely preterm infants, until additional supportive evidence on its safety becomes available.
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.