| Title |
Extubation from low-rate intermittent positive airway pressure versus extubation after a trial of endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure in intubated preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001078 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter G Davis, David J Henderson-Smart |
| Abstract |
Failure of extubation and subsequent reintubation may result in additional stress and trauma to the premature infant. Testing infants about to be extubated with a period of endotracheal CPAP has been suggested as a method of demonstrating readiness for extubation. However, this process has been criticized as increasing the neonate's work of breathing and perhaps increasing the likelihood of extubation failure. In premature infants having their endotracheal tube removed, is direct extubation from low rate intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) more successful than that following a period of endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)? The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group as outlined in the Cochrane Library was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal hand searching mainly in the English language. All trials using random or quasi-random allocation of premature infants to endotracheal CPAP or direct extubation following a period of IPPV were included. Data were extracted using standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk. Direct extubation from low rate ventilation is associated with a trend to increased chance of successful extubation when compared to extubation after a period of endotracheal CPAP, RR 0.45 (0.19,1.07), RD -0.103 (-0.200,-0.006), NNT 10 (5,167). When only truly randomized trials are considered, this result becomes both statistically significant and clinically important, RR 0.10 (0.01,0.78), RD -0.201 (-0.319,-0.083), NNT 5 (3,12). Similar differences are seen for the secondary outcome, apnea. Preterm infants no longer requiring endotracheal intubation and IPPV should be directly extubated without a trial of ETT CPAP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 39 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2020.
All research outputs
#15,443,875
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,813
of 12,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,982
of 44,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 44,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.