You are here

Article Text

Article menu
This month in the Fetal and Neonatal Edition...
"Baby triggered ventilation" no better than conventional methods
  1. H MARCOVITCH, Editor in Chief

https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.82.1.F0

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    TheFetal and Neonatal Edition looks different this century. The contents will be as strong as ever, ably supervised by Janet Rennie and Peter Hope. Your letters can now be posted on our website—url: www.archdischild.com—to avoid the long delay inherent in bimonthy publication. Any suggestions or offerings for our front cover picture are welcome.

    “Baby triggered ventilation” no better than conventional methods

    Always committed to randomised controlled trials, neonatologists have been working hard to provide more evidence base for practice. In this issue there are two large trials of patient triggered ventilation. One is a large collaborative study in which almost 1000 preterm babies were randomly allocated to either patient triggered (PTV) or conventional ventilation for treatment of their respiratory distress syndrome (Pp 5-10). The group are to be congratulated for having persevered and achieved such a large trial size.

     There …

    View Full Text