Nasal mask vs binasal prongs for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) given with nasal masks (NM) compared with binasal prongs (BNP) on the incidence of intubation within 72 hours in preterm infants (primary outcome) via meta-analysis of clinical studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception through 4 December 2019. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: Two independent co-authors extracting data performed the meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model to yield pooled relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We used Cochrane GRADE to evaluate the evidence quality. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed NCPAP provided via NM significantly reduced the rate of intubation within 72 hours (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90; nine studies; GRADE-moderate) and nasal trauma (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55-0.74; GRADE-low) compared with NCPAP provided via BNP. Also, NCPAP via NM significantly reduced surfactant treatment (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97; GRADE-very low) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95; GRADE-low) compared with BNP in a setting where NCPAP was used as the primary support in respiratory distress syndrome. No statistically significant differences were noted between groups in secondary outcomes except increased NCPAP duration when NCPAP given with NM compared with BNP (mean difference [days], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.67-1.89; GRADE-low). CONCLUSION: Among premature infants, NCPAP provided with NM is more effective in preventing intubation and mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of initiating the support compared with NCPAP provided with BNP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".