Cerebral Oximetry in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Discussion of Two Contradicting Study Results (SafeBoosC-II, SafeBoosC-III).

Martin Wolf, Marco Ferrari, Felix Scholkmann

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Martin WolfBiomedical Optics Research Laboratory, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Martin.Wolf@usz.ch.

Marco FerrariDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Science, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.

Felix ScholkmannBiomedical Optics Research Laboratory, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the usefulness of near-infrared spectroscopy-based cerebral oximetry in extremely preterm infants to prevent death or severe brain injury was evaluated in a study called SafeBoosC-III (N = 1601). In this study, the incidence of both outcomes was similar between the cerebral oximetry and the control group. In a previous smaller study called SafeBoosC-II (N = 166), there was a borderline significant advantage for cerebral oximetry. There is therefore a highly significant (p = 0.010) difference between the two outcomes. What could be the reason for the difference? One major difference was that many centres were not familiar with cerebral oximeters in the new study compared with the old study. This could be a reason for the discrepancy. We conclude that cerebral oximetry should not be disregarded as a method of neuromonitoring in neonatology.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalOximetrySpectroscopy, Near-InfraredBrainBrain InjuriesCerebrovascular CirculationHumansInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, NewbornOxygenOxygenBrain injuryCerebral oximetryDeathNear infrared spectroscopyPreterm infants

Identifiers

PMID39400797

DOI10.1038/s41390-022-02392-2

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.