SynthesisIndian journal of pediatrics2025
RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Ram cannula vs nasal mask interface for providing CPAP in preterm neonates (< 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome in a low- and middle-income country: an open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of RAM cannula with short binasal prongs (SBPs) as nasal interfaces in preterm infants requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).
methodsThe authors searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) and trial registries from inception until March 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the RAM cannula with SBP for delivering nCPAP/NIPPV. They performed a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was failure of nCPAP/NIPPV. Secondary outcomes included nasal injury, mechanical ventilation, air leaks, and mortality.
resultsFive RCTs (825 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in nCPAP/NIPPV failure (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.87) or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.01) between the RAM cannula and SBP groups (low to very low certainty). Compared with infants in the SBP group, those in the RAM cannula group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury [(5 RCTs, 825 participants; RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66); low certainty] and any nasal injury [(RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76; very low certainty)]. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes.
conclusionsIn comparison to SBP, the RAM cannula may have little to no effect on nCPAP/NIPPV failure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of RAM cannula possibly results in reduction in moderate to severe nasal trauma in preterm infants receiving nCPAP/NIPPV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39085731What 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.