Cochrane · systematic review · CD010332
Routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth
Foster, JP, Dawson, JA, Davis, PG, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
NeonatalAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 5 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction
Population: newborn infants at birth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality (before discharge) Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction | RR 2.29 [0.94, 5.53] | 2 studies · 3023 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Need for resuscitation Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction | RR 0.85 [0.69, 1.06] | 5 studies · 3791 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction | RR 0.76 [0.33, 1.77] | 1 study · 509 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Infection Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction | RR 0.76 [0.42, 1.36] | 1 study · 509 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Admission to NICU Summary of findings table for oro/nasopharyngeal suction vs no suction | RR 0.82 [0.62, 1.08] | 2 studies · 997 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |