Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome: 1.1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome: 1.1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, outcome: 1.1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, outcome: 1.1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome: 1.2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%) ‐ by weight.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome: 1.2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%) ‐ by weight.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, outcome: 1.2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%) ‐ by weight.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, outcome: 1.2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%) ‐ by weight.

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 1 Heart rate decrease >10%.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 1 Heart rate decrease >10%.

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 2 Change in heart rate (HR)(%) ‐ by weight.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 2 Change in heart rate (HR)(%) ‐ by weight.

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 3 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) ‐ by weight.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 3 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) ‐ by weight.

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 4 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) ‐ by weight.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 4 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) ‐ by weight.

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 5 Change in TcPO2 (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 5 Change in TcPO2 (%).

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 6 TcPO2 decrease>10%.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection, Outcome 6 TcPO2 decrease>10%.

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 1 Heart rate decrease > 10%.

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%).

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 3 Bradycardia (HR <100 bpm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 3 Bradycardia (HR <100 bpm).

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 4 Hypoxia (Sao2 < 90%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode, Outcome 4 Hypoxia (Sao2 < 90%).

Comparison 1. Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Heart rate decrease >10% Show forest plot

3

104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.40, 0.93]

2 Change in heart rate (HR)(%) ‐ by weight Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Change in HR (%) ‐ all weights

4

478

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.77 [4.01, 9.52]

2.2 Change in HR (%) <1000g

1

110

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.18 [5.19, 19.17]

2.3 Change in HR (%) 1000‐2000g

1

136

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.25 [‐1.06, 7.56]

2.4 Change in HR (%) >2000g

1

128

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.24 [‐0.06, 8.54]

3 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) ‐ by weight Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) ‐ all weights

3

482

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.92]

3.2 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) <1000g

1

122

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 3.12]

3.3 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) 1000‐2000g

1

144

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.05]

3.4 Bradycardia (HR < 100 bpm) > 2000g

1

134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.38]

4 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) ‐ by weight Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) ‐ all weights

3

482

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.31, 0.74]

4.2 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) < 1000g

1

122

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.6 [0.15, 2.40]

4.3 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) 1000‐2000g

1

144

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 3.13]

4.4 Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) > 2000g

1

134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.09, 1.18]

5 Change in TcPO2 (%) Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

18.5 [8.11, 28.89]

6 TcPO2 decrease>10% Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.19, 0.82]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Suctioning without disconnection versus with disconnection
Comparison 2. Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Heart rate decrease > 10% Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 SIMV ‐ synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.7 [0.33, 1.47]

1.2 HFOV ‐ high frequency oscillatory ventilation

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.6 [0.19, 1.86]

2 Change in heart rate (HR) (%) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 SIMV ‐ synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.98 [‐5.88, 15.84]

2.2 HFOV ‐ high frequency oscillatory ventilation

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.04 [‐14.37, 24.45]

3 Bradycardia (HR <100 bpm) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 SIMV ‐ synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.12, 3.57]

3.2 HFOV ‐ high frequency oscillatory ventilation

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 2.69]

4 Hypoxia (Sao2 < 90%) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 SIMV ‐ synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.25, 1.58]

4.2 HFOV ‐ high frequency oscillatory ventilation

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.39, 1.15]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Suctioning without disconnect versus with disconnect ‐ by ventilation mode