SynthesisPediatric pulmonology2026
Safety of Less Invasive Surfactant Administration in Preterm Infants: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric pulmonology, 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
Abstract
backgroundLess invasive surfactant administration (LISA) is increasingly used in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Understanding its safety profile compared to the INtubation-SURfactant-Extubation (INSURE) or endotracheal tube (ETT) techniques is essential.
objectiveTo evaluate the safety profile of LISA compared to INSURE/ETT in preterm infants with RDS using evidence from randomized and non-randomized studies.
methodsA systematic literature review identified studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (2010-2024). Arm-level pooled incidence estimates were generated across RCTs and non-randomized studies, and pairwise comparisons of LISA versus INSURE/ETT were conducted in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Analyses utilized Generalized Linear Mixed Models with random-effects. Subgroups included gestational age (≤ 34 weeks), surfactant type, antenatal steroid exposure (≥ 50%) and sedation and premedication use.
resultsNineteen RCTs (2460 infants) and 26 non-randomized studies (2360 infants) met inclusion criteria. Pairwise comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between LISA and INSURE/ETT for apnea, bradycardia, cough, hypoxemia, or need for ≥ 2 attempts for successful catheter/ETT placement attempts; however, surfactant regurgitation/reflux occurred more frequently with LISA (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.21-4.33). Adverse event rates were generally higher in non‑randomized studies, with hypoxemia the most frequently reported event across study types (≥ 24%). Subgroup findings were consistent with overall results.
conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis evaluating LISA safety outcomes across both RCTs and non-randomized studies. LISA demonstrates a safety profile broadly comparable to INSURE/ETT for most outcomes. Differences observed in observational studies likely reflect variability in reporting and clinical practice. Standardized training and procedure optimization may further enhance safety.
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.