SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) reduces the intubation rate compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as a primary respiratory support strategy in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from inception to December 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs comparing NHFOV with NCPAP as the initial respiratory support for preterm infants with RDS. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the rate of endotracheal intubation.
resultsFive RCTs involving 912 preterm infants were included. Compared with NCPAP, NHFOV significantly reduced the intubation rate (relative risk [RR]: 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.68; P < 0.001). No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (P = 0.79; I
conclusionsAs a primary respiratory support strategy for preterm infants with RDS, NHFOV is superior to NCPAP in reducing the need for endotracheal intubation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41739215What 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.