Trial reportBMC pediatrics2026
"Hemodynamic effects of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates following extubation: a randomized controlled trial".
Trial report in BMC 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are two commonly used modalities of non-invasive respiratory support in neonatal intensive care units. Although both are effective, NIPPV is increasingly preferred because of its additional clinical advantages. However, the comparative hemodynamic effects of these strategies remain uncertain. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of NIPPV and NCPAP in preterm infants following extubation.
methodsIn this single-center randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates (26-36
resultsSixty preterm neonates were included in the final analysis (30 in each group). Baseline RVO and LVO on invasive mechanical ventilation were comparable between the groups (p = 0.33, 0.53). Post-extubation, infants on NIPPV demonstrated significantly lower cardiac outputs than those on NCPAP at 4-6 h (RVO, p = 0.006; LVO, p = 0.001) and at 18-24 h (RVO, p < 0.001; LVO, p < 0.001). After adjustment for gestational age and birth weight, these differences remained significant. Sensitivity analysis adjusting for baseline oxygen saturation index attenuated the early differences, whereas those at 18-24 h remained significant (RVO p = 0.030; LVO p = 0.022). Despite statistical significance, all values remained within gestational age-appropriate physiological limits. Mean airway pressure was significantly higher in the NIPPV group at 4-6 h (10.35 ± 1.0 vs. 6.16 ± 1.2 cm H₂O) and 18-24 h (9.72 ± 1.3 vs. 5.71 ± 1.6 cm H₂O; both p < 0.001) and showed a significant inverse correlation with cardiac outputs.
conclusionNeonates supported with NIPPV in the post-extubation period demonstrated lower cardiac outputs compared with those on NCPAP, and this was associated with higher mean airway pressures. Although within physiological limits, these changes warrant hemodynamic monitoring and further evaluation of their clinical impact. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2024/04/065278) on 05 April 2024. Trial details are publicly accessible at https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=78,344 .
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.