English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nasal high-flow rates for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates STUDY DESIGN:  In this single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress from birth were randomized to treatment with either increased nasal flow therapy (8-10 L/min) or standard nasal flow therapy (5-7 L/min). The primary outcome of nasal high-flow therapy failure was a composite outcome defined as the need for higher respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Flow Rates of Nasal High-Flow Therapy in Preterm Neonates ≥28 Weeks of Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial