SynthesisPloS one2024
Noninvasive high-frequency oscillation ventilation as post- extubation respiratory support in neonates: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Multimodal Implementations to Reduce Neonatal Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Colistin Use: An Interrupted Time Series.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Use of Prophylactic Methylxanthines to Prevent Extubation Failure in Preterm Neonates with a Birth Weight of 1250-2499 g: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNoninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation (NHFOV) is increasingly being adopted to reduce the need for invasive ventilation after extubation.
objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of NHFOV as post-extubation respiratory support in newborns compared to other non-invasive respiratory support modes. MATERIAL &
methodsWe included randomized controlled trials comparing NHFOV with other non-invasive modes post-extubation in newborns. Data sources were MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO international clinical trials registry platform and Clinical Trial Registry, forward and backward citation search. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool 1.0.
resultsThis systematic review included 21 studies and 3294 participants, the majority of whom were preterm. NHFOV compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) reduced reintubation within seven days (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.53) after extubation. It also reduced extubation failure (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.51) and reintubation within 72 hrs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and pulmonary air leak (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79) compared to NCPAP. The rate of reintubation within seven days (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.14) was similar whereas extubation failure (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83) and reintubation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89) within 72 hrs were lower in NHFOV group compared to nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. There was no effect on other outcomes. Overall quality of the evidence was low to very low in both comparisons.
conclusionsNHFOV may reduce the rate of reintubation and extubation failure post-extubation without increasing complications. Majority of the trials were exclusively done in preterm neonates. Further research with high methodological quality is warranted.
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.