ArticlePediatric pulmonology2025
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in neonatal and pediatric critical care-A scoping review of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 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.
- From theory to practice: implementing an education bundle for neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in the intensive care unit.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in neonatal and pediatric critical care-A scoping review of randomized controlled trials.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We Aimed to analyze for which indications neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has been studied in pediatric patients by conducting a scoping review. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in September 2023. We included all randomized trials (including crossover, parallel, and cluster) comparing NAVA to other invasive ventilation modalities in children aged <18 years. We had three key outcomes. What have been the patient and disease groups where NAVA has been studied? What kind of trials and what has been the risk of bias in these randomized trials? What have been the most used outcomes and main findings? The risk of bias was assessed according to the risk of bias 2.0 tool. This review has been reported as preferred in PRISMA-ScR guidelines. After screening 367 abstracts, 27 full reports were assessed and finally 13 studies were included. Six studies were conducted in neonates and seven in older pediatric patients. Ten of the studies were crossover and three were parallel randomized. Overall risk of bias was low in two studies, had some concerns in six studies, and was high in five studies. Most issues came from the randomization process and bias in the selection of reported results. Most used outcomes were changes in clinical parameters or measurements (such as ventilation peak and mean airway pressures, oxygenation index), and ventilator synchrony. Three parallel group trials focused on ventilation duration. The majority of the studies found NAVA as a possible alternative ventilation strategy. Although NAVA is a widely used strategy in neonatal and pediatric intensive care the current literature has notable limitations due to the risk of bias in the original studies and lack of parallel studies focusing on clinical or cost-effectiveness outcomes.
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.