Bubble versus other continuous positive airway pressure forms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Use of bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has generated considerable interest in neonatal care, but its comparative effectiveness compared with other forms of CPAP, especially in developed countries, remains unclear. Objective To systematically review and meta-analyse short-term clinical outcomes among preterm infants treated with bubble CPAP vs all other forms of CPAP. Methods Prospective experimental studies published from 1995 onward until October 2018 comparing bubble versus other CPAP forms in preterm neonates <37 weeks’ gestational age were included after a systematic review of multiple databases using pre-specified search criteria. Results A total of 978 articles were identified, of which 19 articles were included in meta-analyses. Of these, 5 had a high risk of bias, 8 had unclear risk and 6 had low risk. The risk of the primary outcome (CPAP failure within 7 days) was lower with bubble CPAP (0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98; 12 studies, 1194 subjects, I2=21%). Among secondary outcomes, only nasal injury was higher with use of bubble CPAP (risk ratio (RR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.14; 9 studies, 983 subjects; I2=42%) whereas no differences in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.92; 9 studies, 1212 subjects, I2=20%) or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; 8 studies, 816 subjects, I2=0%) were noted. Conclusion Bubble CPAP may lead to lower incidence of CPAP failure compared with other CPAP forms. However, it does not appear to translate to improvement in mortality or BPD and potential for nasal injury warrants close monitoring during clinical application. Trial registration number CRD42019120411.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".