ReviewSAGE open medicine2026
Chronic phase ventilation strategy in established severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia: A critical evaluation of the evidence.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We review the chronic phase ventilation (CPV) strategy recommended in infants with the most severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (msBPD, mechanically ventilated at 36-40 weeks post-menstrual age). The safety and efficacy of CPV was important to scrutinize because msBPD is increasingly common, and infants with msBPD are often transferred to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) where the CPV strategy started in neonatal intensive care is expected to continue as the standard of care. First, we describe the CPV strategy, and the supporting evidence given by expert proponents. Second, we subject the supporting evidence to critical scrutiny and explain flaws that weaken support. Third, we give evidence that the strategy is based upon unsound pathophysiology and hence may be harmful. Fourth, we put this all together by making unstated (and unsupported) premises in explaining the benefit of CPV explicit. We made four conclusions. First, the literature suggested that CPV is based upon circular referencing among chapters and narrative reviews written by the same respected experts, and therefore, upon literature inadequately subjected to critical scrutiny. Second, these reviews explained physiologic theory with little supportive evidence that had likely been misinterpreted, and referred to outcome studies that did not examine the effect of the CPV strategy. Third, when implicit assumptions are made explicit, there is evidence to show a lack of consensus about and potential harms of the CPV strategy, and inaccurate interpretations of msBPD physiology. Fourth, there was no rationale that withstands critical scrutiny to suppose ventilated children with msBPD might be an exception to using a standard of care ventilation strategy used in acute lung disease. If the CPV strategy is beneficial, we urgently need better data to that effect; otherwise, it is too early to widely adopt what may be a harmful strategy as standard of care.
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.