ArticleCureus2026
Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm (Edi) Metrics in Premature Infants Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Versus Noninvasive Respiratory Support.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn neonatology, many of our patients require respiratory support for a variety of pathologies. However, there is little data regarding objective parameters to help guide this support. Decisions regarding the optimal level of support for each patient remain largely subjective. The electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) is a measure of neural respiratory drive and inspiratory load. This could serve as a useful tool to provide objective data regarding respiratory status, which in turn may aid in decision-making about optimal respiratory support.
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to compare Edi metrics in infants who required invasive mechanical ventilation with those who remained on noninvasive modes of ventilation. The secondary objective was to compare the rates and severity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in the two groups. DESIGN/
methodsThis was a prospective observational pilot study. Infants admitted to the neonatal ICUs (NICUs) at Hassenfeld Children's Hospital and Bellevue Hospital Center, born at a gestational age of 26-32 weeks and weighing >500 grams, were eligible for the study. An Edi catheter (Maquet Critical Care AB, Solna, Sweden) was placed within the first 24 hours of life and remained in place for 72 hours. Subjects were weaned or escalated on their respiratory support based on current unit practice guidelines. They were separated into two groups: those who required invasive mechanical ventilation and those who did not. Paired Student's t-tests, chi-square tests, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsA total of 29 subjects were enrolled: 15 in the intubated group and 14 in the noninvasive group. Edi minimum was significantly lower, and delta Edi (the difference between Edi peak and minimum) was higher in the non-intubated group. There were no statistical differences in Edi peaks between the groups, although there was a trend toward higher peaks in the noninvasive group. Additionally, BPD outcomes were not statistically different.
conclusionsThe lower Edi minimum in the non-intubated group suggests less severe lung disease and milder respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), requiring less stimulus and external support to generate adequate distending pressure to maintain alveolar patency at end-expiration. The higher delta Edi indicates a greater intrinsic ability to generate an adequate tidal volume for ventilation. There is wide variation in practice regarding modes of ventilation, both invasive and noninvasive, with no clear best practice. We lack objective data to guide our practice. This study is the first to examine Edi metrics as a monitoring tool to assess the degree of disease severity and sufficiency of support provided. Our results suggest that using Edi metrics may provide more data to help standardize and guide 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.