Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation vs conventional ventilation: Mortality before cross‐over
Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation probably leads to lower mortality before cross‐over compared with conventional ventilation (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation vs conventional ventilation Mortality before cross‐over · preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation probably leads to lower mortality before cross‐over compared with conventional ventilation (moderate certainty). Rescue high‐frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.66 [0.45, 0.97] | 1 study · 144 participants | Moderate |
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.