SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for premature infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 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.
- Evolution of diaphragmatic thickness and function in preterm infants on non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- NAVA use in infants with established bronchopulmonary dysplasia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and those on ECMO: a narrative literature review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the benefits of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) versus Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as respiratory support for premature infants.
methodsLiterature on NIV-NAVA and NCPAP as respiratory support of premature infants was comprehensively searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and VIP database. The search time was from the establishment of the database to June 20, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.4 software. The rate of extubation failure, need for intubation, surfactant therapy, as well as the adverse outcomes of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and pneumothorax were compared between NIV-NAVA group and NCPAP group.
results5 eligible randomized controlled trials involving 326 newborns were included. No significant difference was found in the above 7 indexes between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP.
conclusionsCompared with NCPAP, NIV-NAVA has not obtained significant advantages in premature infants yet. However, NIV-NAVA is still a potential non-invasive mechanical ventilation method, which needs more research to confirm.
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.