ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
Comparison of noninvasive and intermittent positive pressure ventilation in treating extremely premature and extremely low birth weight infants.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the application value of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in the treatment of very premature infants and extremely low birth weight infants.
methodsMultivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing the transition from noninvasive to invasive ventilation in this infant cohort.
resultsAmong extremely preterm infants, 83.3% with gestational age <25 weeks transitioned from noninvasive to invasive ventilation, as did 80.6% of those with birth weight <1000 grams. Multivariate analysis indicated that gestational age <25 weeks, birth weight <1000 grams, and Apgar score ≤7 were significant factors affecting the likelihood of transitioning to invasive ventilation. The survival rate at discharge was 94% for the NIPPV group compared with 89% for the IPPV group. The NIPPV group demonstrated significantly lower rates of complications, shorter weaning times, and reduced lengths of hospital stay compared with the IPPV group.
conclusionsBoth NIPPV and IPPV effectively improved oxygenation and ventilation in extremely preterm infants. However, NIPPV showed significant advantages in reducing complications, shortening weaning time, and decreasing the hospital stay duration. Prioritizing the use of NIPPV may enhance treatment outcomes and survival quality, providing evidence-based support for clinical practice.
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.