You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Bubble versus other continuous positive airway pressure forms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 12 June 2021
    Bubble CPAP for neonates :Is it really better than others!
    • Supreet Khurana, Assistant Professor Neonatology Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh ,India
    • Other Contributors:
      • Deepak Chawla, Professor Neonatology

    CPAP is the standard method of respiratory support in preterm neonates. BCPAP is the most widely used type of CPAP in low- and middle-income countries due to its simplicity of design, ease of use and low cost.[1] Efficacy of BCPAP has been compared against other pressure generating devices in many small RCTs and is the topic of interest amongst neonatologists. Latest systematic review involving 12 eligible studies including 1194 subjects shows a significant reduction of CPAP failure in BCPAP group [RR 0.75 ,95% CI (0.57-0.98)] without any significant impact on mortality, BPD and air leak.[2] However, we want to identify few issues with the review which if addressed, may shift the pooled treatment effect towards ‘null’.
    First, authors have used the random-effects meta-analysis (REM) to calculate the pooled effect size. A fixed-effects meta-analysis assumes that all individual studies are trying to estimate a single true effect of the intervention and the pooled estimate is the ‘typical’ intervention effect.[3] However, the REM assumes that different studies are estimating different (but related) treatment effect which have a distribution (assumed to be a normal distribution). The pooled estimate obtained with REM is hence an ‘average’ intervention effect based on the assumption that intervention effects seen in all the individual studies are available for pooling. Therefore, before conducting a REM, publication bias needs to be excluded. If a publication bias exists,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.