Supraglottic Airways Compared With Face Masks for Neonatal Resuscitation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is the most important component of neonatal resuscitation, but face mask ventilation can be difficult. Compare supraglottic airway devices (SA) with face masks for term and late preterm infants receiving PPV immediately after birth. METHODS: Data sources include Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Study selections include randomized, quasi-randomized, interrupted time series, controlled before-after, and cohort studies with English abstracts. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was failure to improve with positive pressure ventilation. When appropriate, data were pooled using fixed effect models. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials (1823 newborn infants) showed that use of an SA decreased the probability of failure to improve with PPV (relative risk 0.24; 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.36; P <.001, moderate certainty) and endotracheal intubation (4 randomized controlled trials, 1689 newborn infants) in the delivery room (relative risk 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.56; P <.001, low certainty). The duration of PPV and time until heart rate >100 beats per minute was shorter with the SA. There was no difference in the use of chest compressions or epinephrine during resuscitation. Certainty of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among late preterm and term infants who require resuscitation after birth, ventilation may be more effective if delivered by SA rather than face mask and may reduce the need for endotracheal intubation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".