Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction: Mortality before hospital discharge
Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction showed no clear difference in mortality (before discharge) compared with no suction (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction Mortality (before discharge) · newborn infants at birth Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction showed no clear difference in mortality (before discharge) compared with no suction (low certainty). Routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.29 [0.94, 5.53] | 2 studies · 3023 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.