Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation vs conventional ventilation: Chronic lung disease
Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation showed no clear difference in chronic lung disease at 28 days of birth (CLD 28 days) compared with conventional ventilation (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation vs conventional ventilation Chronic lung disease at 28 days of birth (CLD 28 days) · preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation showed no clear difference in chronic lung disease at 28 days of birth (CLD 28 days) compared with conventional ventilation (low certainty). Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.77 [0.54, 1.07] | 1 study · 97 participants | Low |
Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation vs conventional ventilation Chronic lung disease at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (CLD 36 wPMA) · preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction The review found no eligible studies for this question. Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants 2015 · 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.