Question · asked by 1 review

Summary of Findings Table ‐ Low vs moderate‐high nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels: BPD at 28 days

Population
health problem or population
Intervention
Summary of Findings Table ‐ Low
Comparison
moderate‐high nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels
Outcome
BPD at 28 days

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 1 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Summary of Findings Table ‐ Low vs moderate‐high nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels
BPD, defined as supplemental oxygen use at 28 days of age ‐ not measured · health problem or population
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extractedNot reportedNo studies found
Summary of Findings Table ‐ Low vs moderate‐high nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels
BPD, defined as supplemental oxygen use at 28 days of age · health problem or population
It is very uncertain whether summary of Findings Table ‐ Low changes BPD, defined as supplemental oxygen use at 28 days of age compared with moderate‐high nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels (very low certainty).
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.1 [0.56, 2.17]1 study · 271 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants
2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot assessed
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.