Diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive vs other non‐invasive respiratory support: Failure of modality
It is very uncertain whether diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive changes failure of modality compared with other non‐invasive respiratory support (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive vs other non‐invasive respiratory support Failure of modality · preventing respiratory failure in preterm infants It is very uncertain whether diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive changes failure of modality compared with other non‐invasive respiratory support (very low certainty). Diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive respiratory support in preterm infants (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.33 [0.02, 7.14] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive respiratory support in preterm infants 2020 · 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.