ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Caffeine treatment for apnea in infants and children: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaffeine citrate is recommended to treat apnea of prematurity in premature neonates based on high-quality evidence demonstrating improved outcomes. In contrast, the prescription of caffeine for mature neonates and infants hospitalized with apnea is based on a paucity of evidence. We present here our protocol for a systematic review to synthesize existing data on the safety and effectiveness of caffeine treatment for apnea in hospitalized pediatric patients, with findings expected to focus on mature neonates and infants.
methodsWe developed this systematic review protocol in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and PRISMA-P checklist. The search strategy was developed with the assistance of an information specialist. Information sources will include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases, as well as unpublished literature sources. Eligible studies will include randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, and observational studies investigating caffeine (of any formulation, administered by any route, of any duration) versus placebo, usual care, or non-methylxanthine comparator. The population of interest is children aged 0-17 years with apnea presenting to emergency, critical care, or in-patient settings; studies of premature babies receiving treatment for apnea of prematurity will be excluded. Critical outcomes include total duration of respiratory support, ventilator-free days, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of non-invasive respiratory support, time to apnea cessation, and serious adverse events. Two authors will independently screen identified studies against prespecified eligibility criteria. Data from included studies will be abstracted in duplicate and entered into our data abstraction form. Risk of bias for each included study will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the appropriate risk of bias tool. If appropriate, we will perform a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with results presented in a summary of findings table. DISCUSSION: We will undertake the first rigorous evidence synthesis examining the safety and efficacy of caffeine treatment for apnea in hospitalized pediatric patients, where studies of premature babies with apnea of prematurity will be specifically excluded. We aim to fill the identified knowledge gap with this systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251146484.
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.