Cochrane · systematic review · CD015129
Masks versus prongs as interfaces for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants
Prakash, R, De Paoli, AG, Oddie, SJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · 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
6
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 16.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 16.7%Low 4 · 66.7%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
Mask versus prongs for nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants
Population: preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure Mask vs prongs | RR 0.72 [0.58, 0.9] | 8 studies · 919 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All‐cause mortality Mask vs prongs | RR 0.83 [0.56, 1.22] | 7 studies · 814 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Neurodevelopmental impairment Mask vs prongs | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pneumothorax Mask vs prongs | RR 0.93 [0.45, 1.93] | 5 studies · 625 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Moderate–severe nasal injury Mask vs prongs | RR 0.55 [0.44, 0.71] | 10 studies · 1058 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia Mask vs prongs | RR 0.69 [0.46, 1.03] | 7 studies · 843 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |