Pressure versus Sudden Wean from Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a well-studied treatment for respiratory problems in preterm infants. However, the best strategy for NCPAP weaning is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the success of progressive pressure wean versus sudden wean for discontinuation of NCPAP in preterm infants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, -CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials comparing pressure wean to sudden wean for NCPAP in preterm infants were included. Primary outcomes were postmenstrual age (PMA) at successful weaning and weight gain. Secondary outcomes were total duration of ventilation, success of weaning strategy on first attempt, length of stay (LOS), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). RESULTS: Two trials (422 infants) were eligible for inclusion. Pressure wean was associated with a higher PMA at weaning (33.9 ± 2.1 vs. 32.1 ± 2.0 weeks, mean difference [MD] 0.88, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.35, low quality evidence). Daily weight gain was only reported in 1 trial. Total duration of ventilation was not reported. Pressure wean was associated with higher probability of successful weaning at first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.53). However, it was not associated with LOS (MD -2.5 days, 95% CI -7.3 to 2.4) or BPD (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.63). CONCLUSION: Sudden wean of NCPAP was associated with a lower PMA at successful wean compared to pressure wean but also with a lower rate of successful wean at first attempt, most likely because of the developmental stage at which weaning is possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".