ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2025
Interprofessional perspectives on non-invasive respiratory support practices in extremely preterm infants: a Canadian survey.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe barriers and strategies amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) for optimal non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) provision in extremely preterm infants. STUDY
designA cross-sectional web-based anonymized 19-question survey was sent to HCPs across Canadian tertiary care NICUs. The survey inquired about perspectives on NRS devices and management strategies, respiratory event monitoring, NRS failure, and possible solutions.
result391 responses from 61 physicians, 173 nurses, and 147 respiratory therapists were analyzed. HCP perspectives varied regarding appropriateness of different NRS settings and interfaces, documentation of cardiorespiratory events, and prevention of NRS failure. Obtaining effective NRS was deemed challenging by 48% of HCPs. NRS training was deemed adequate by 89% of respiratory therapists and 78% of physicians, but only 56% of nurses.
conclusionSubstantial interprofessional variations exist in perceived benefits of various aspects of NRS. Better evidence on NRS modalities/settings, together with development of interdisciplinary guidelines and enhanced training, might reduce variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40221609What 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.