ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2026
Occlusive
Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for respiratory distress in preterm infants, but optimal interface selection remains controversial. Occlusive interfaces (nasal prongs and masks with tight seals) provide accurate pressure delivery but can cause significant nasal trauma, while non-occlusive interfaces (loosely fitting nasal cannulae) reduce trauma but may compromise therapeutic efficacy.
objectiveTo synthesise current evidence comparing occlusive with non-occlusive CPAP interfaces regarding pressure delivery accuracy, clinical efficacy, safety outcomes and practical implementation in neonatal intensive care.
methodsComprehensive review of randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, bench studies and observational studies comparing CPAP interface types in preterm neonates. Evidence quality assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria where applicable.
resultsOcclusive interfaces deliver pressure within 0.5-1.0 cmH
conclusionsCurrent evidence supports occlusive CPAP as first-line therapy for moderate-to-severe respiratory distress in preterm neonates, particularly those of <32 weeks' gestation. Non-occlusive interfaces may be appropriate for stable infants, weaning support or apnoea of prematurity management. Adequately powered randomised trials stratified by gestational age and respiratory severity are urgently needed to define optimal interface selection strategies.
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.