Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

PRISMA flow diagram

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 1: Meconium aspiration syndrome

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 1: Meconium aspiration syndrome

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 2: All‐cause neonatal mortality

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 2: All‐cause neonatal mortality

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 3: Hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 3: Hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 4: Need for chest compressions (during resuscitation)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 4: Need for chest compressions (during resuscitation)

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 5: Need for epinephrine (during resuscitation)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 5: Need for epinephrine (during resuscitation)

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 6: Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes after birth

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 6: Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes after birth

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 7: Mechanical ventilation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 7: Mechanical ventilation

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 8: Duration of oxygen therapy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 8: Duration of oxygen therapy

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 9: Duration of mechanical ventilation (hours)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 9: Duration of mechanical ventilation (hours)

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 10: Non‐invasive ventilation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 10: Non‐invasive ventilation

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 11: Pulmonary air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 11: Pulmonary air leaks

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 12: Duration of hospital stay (hours)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 12: Duration of hospital stay (hours)

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 13: Severe delay in mental development index at 9 months

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 13: Severe delay in mental development index at 9 months

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 14: Severe delay in motor development index at 9 months

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 14: Severe delay in motor development index at 9 months

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 15: Persistent pulmonary hypertension

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 15: Persistent pulmonary hypertension

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 16: Culture positive sepsis

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction, Outcome 16: Culture positive sepsis

Summary of findings 1. Tracheal suction compared to no tracheal suction in non‐vigorous neonates born through meconium‐stained amniotic fluid

Tracheal suction compared to no suction in non‐vigorous neonates born through meconium‐stained amniotic fluid (MSAF)

Patient or population: non‐vigorous neonates born through meconium‐stained amniotic fluid
Setting: tertiary care hospitals in India
Intervention: tracheal suction
Comparison: no suction

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no tracheal suction

Risk with Tracheal suction

Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS)
assessed with: respiratory distress developing soon after birth in an infant born through MSAF with compatible radiological findings that cannot be otherwise explained

Study population

RR 1.00
(0.80 to 1.25)

581
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome.

346 per 1000

346 per 1000
(277 to 432)

All‐cause neonatal mortality 

assessed with: all‐cause neonatal deaths before discharge from hospital

Study population

RR 1.24
(0.76 to 2.02)

575
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWb

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of death before hospital discharge.

90 per 1000

112 per 1000
(68 to 182)

Moderate to severe hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE)
assessed with: clinical assessment within 72 hours of birth

Study population

RR 0.68
(0.43 to 1.09)

152
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWc

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of moderate to severe hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy. 

390 per 1000

265 per 1000
(168 to 425)

Any hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE)
assessed with: clinical assessment within 72 hours of birth

Study population

RR 1.05
(0.68 to 1.63)

175
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWd

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of any hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy. 

307 per 1000

322 per 1000
(209 to 500)

Need for mechanical ventilation

assessed with: clinical and laboratory assessment of gas exchange before discharge from hospital

Study population

RR 0.99
(0.68 to 1.44)

581
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWe

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the need for mechanical ventilation.

154 per 1000

153 per 1000
(105 to 222)

Pulmonary air leaks (PAL)

assessed with: clinical and radiological assessment before discharge from hospital

Study population

RR 1.22
(0.38 to 3.93)

449
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWf

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of pulmonary air leaks.

22 per 1,000

27 per 1,000
(8 to 87)

Persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN)

assessed with: clinical or echocardiographic diagnosis before discharge from hospital

Study population

RR 1.29
(0.60 to 2.77)

406
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWf

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of persistent pulmonary hypertension.

54 per 1000

70 per 1000
(32 to 149)

Culture‐positive sepsis

assessed with: blood culture before discharge from hospital

Study population

RR 1.32
(0.48 to 3.57)

406
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWf

We are uncertain whether tracheal suction has an effect on the incidence of culture‐positive sepsis.

29 per 1000

39 per 1000
(14 to 105)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect 

aDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision (wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance). Outcome assessors were masked to the study intervention in only two studies. Care providers were masked to the study intervention in only one of the two studies which reported this outcome. There was no allocation concealment in one study. 
bDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance). Care providers were masked to the study intervention in only one of the two studies which reported this outcome. There was no allocation concealment in one study.
cDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. Care providers were not masked to the study intervention. A single study reported this outcome and the effect estimate has a wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance.
dDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. In the single study which reported this outcome, there was no allocation concealment and care providers were not masked to the study intervention. A single study reported this outcome and the effect estimate has a wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance.
eDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias and imprecision (wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance). Outcome assessors were masked to the study intervention in only two studies. Care providers were masked to the study intervention in only one study which reported this outcome. There was no allocation concealment in one study.
fDowngraded by three levels because of very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision (wide confidence interval crossing the line of no significance). Outcome assessors were masked to the study intervention in only two studies. Care providers were masked to the study intervention in only one study which reported this outcome. There was no allocation concealment in one study. 

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Tracheal suction compared to no tracheal suction in non‐vigorous neonates born through meconium‐stained amniotic fluid
Comparison 1. Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Meconium aspiration syndrome Show forest plot

4

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.80, 1.25]

1.2 All‐cause neonatal mortality Show forest plot

4

575

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.76, 2.02]

1.3 Hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.3.1 Any hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy

1

175

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.68, 1.63]

1.3.2 Moderate to severe hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy

1

152

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.09]

1.4 Need for chest compressions (during resuscitation) Show forest plot

4

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.42, 2.06]

1.5 Need for epinephrine (during resuscitation) Show forest plot

4

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.37, 3.92]

1.6 Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes after birth Show forest plot

4

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.87, 1.42]

1.7 Mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

4

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.68, 1.44]

1.8 Duration of oxygen therapy Show forest plot

1

175

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.83, 2.83]

1.9 Duration of mechanical ventilation (hours) Show forest plot

2

43

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.04 [‐20.41, 12.34]

1.10 Non‐invasive ventilation Show forest plot

1

132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.68, 2.74]

1.11 Pulmonary air leaks Show forest plot

3

449

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.02, 0.03]

1.12 Duration of hospital stay (hours) Show forest plot

3

459

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.24 [‐9.27, 4.79]

1.13 Severe delay in mental development index at 9 months Show forest plot

1

86

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.23, 1.84]

1.14 Severe delay in motor development index at 9 months Show forest plot

1

86

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.33, 2.45]

1.15 Persistent pulmonary hypertension Show forest plot

3

406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.60, 2.77]

1.16 Culture positive sepsis Show forest plot

3

406

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Tracheal suction versus no tracheal suction