Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 345

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-Flow Nasal Cannulae in Very Preterm Infants after Extubation

Open access
Manley, Brett J., Owen, Louise S., Doyle, Lex W., Andersen, Chad C., Cartwright, David W., Pritchard, Margo A., Donath, Susan M., Davis, Peter G.·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannulae is an increasingly popular alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for noninvasive respiratory support of very preterm infants (gestational age, <32 weeks) after extubation. However, data on the efficacy or safety of such cannulae in this population are lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned 303 very preterm infants to receive treatment with either high-flow nasal cannulae (5 to 6 liters per minute) or nasal CPAP (7 cm of water) after extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 7 days. Noninferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome; the margin of noninferiority was 20 percentage points. Infants in whom treatment with high-flow nasal cannulae failed could be treated with nasal CPAP; infants in whom nasal CPAP failed were reintubated. RESULTS: The use of high-flow nasal cannulae was noninferior to the use of nasal CPAP, with treatment failure occurring in 52 of 152 infants (34.2%) in the nasal-cannulae group and in 39 of 151 infants (25.8%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 8.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 18.7). Almost half the infants in whom treatment with high-flow nasal cannulae failed were successfully treated with CPAP without reintubation. The incidence of nasal trauma was significantly lower in the nasal-cannulae group than in the CPAP group (P=0.01), but there were no significant differences in rates of serious adverse events or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although the result for the primary outcome was close to the margin of noninferiority, the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannulae was similar to that of CPAP as respiratory support for very preterm infants after extubation. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Network number, ACTRN12610000166077.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1300071

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 345

Metadata

Authors
Manley, B. J., Owen, L. S., Doyle, L. W., Andersen, C. C., Cartwright, D. W., Pritchard, M. A., Donath, S. M., & Davis, P. G.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-10-10
Volume
369
Issue
15
Pages
1425-1433
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2129212558
Cited by
345
References
1
FWCI
28.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-Flow Nasal Cannulae in Very Preterm Infants after Extubation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1300071
The paper
Manley, B. J., Owen, L. S., Doyle, L. W., Andersen, C. C., Cartwright, D. W., Pritchard, M. A., Donath, S. M., & Davis, P. G. (2013). High-Flow Nasal Cannulae in Very Preterm Infants after Extubation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1300071

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.