SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2026
Triggering modalities to synchronise non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 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
backgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (sNIPPV) may be the optimal mode of non-invasive respiratory support. However, no comprehensive review of sNIPPV modes is available. This review aims to describe different synchronisation methods for sNIPPV and compare their effectiveness in clinical, physiological and technical outcomes with other modes of non-invasive respiratory support.
methodsThis review identified all clinical studies in preterm infants that compared sNIPPV to other non-invasive respiratory support modes or compared different trigger modalities between 1990 and 2026. A search was carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Main outcomes were categorised as clinical (eg, extubation failure (EF)), physiological (eg, breathing effort) and technical (eg, synchronisation rate).
results49 studies (2864 infants) were included, with a low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a reduction in EF (risk ratio=0.38; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; p=0.03) in favour of sNIPPV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Physiological outcomes were significantly improved during sNIPPV compared with nCPAP and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), especially breathing effort. When reviewing technical outcomes, non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist showed lower patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) (index ranging from 7% to 50%), a higher synchronisation rate (80%-99%) and a shorter trigger delay (35 ms) compared with other sNIPPV modes.
conclusionsThis review shows that synchronising NIPPV results in consistent physiological (reduced patient effort) and technical benefits (reduced PVA). However, evidence on positive effects on (long-term) major clinical outcomes remains limited and requires further studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251022479.
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.