[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Comment & Response
December 2016

Notice of Duplicate Publication: Heated, Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Respiratory Distress Syndrome of Prematurity: A Randomized Clinical Noninferiority Trial (JAMA Pediatr. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1243)

Author Affiliations
  • 1Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico–Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  • 2TBM Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano University, Milan, Italy
  • 3Laboratory GA Maccaro, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  • 4Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Mangiagalli Hospital, Maternal and Infant Science, Milan, Italy
JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1228. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3743

We write to report that our publication in JAMA Pediatrics (JAMA Pediatr. Published online August 8, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1243)1 included 177 study participants (among 316 reported in the JAMA Pediatrics article1) from an earlier study by our group that was published in Pediatria Medica e Chirurgica (Pediatr Med Chir. 2014;36[4]:88. doi:10.4081/pmc.2014.88).2 However, that study2 was not powered to assess the primary outcome that we reported in JAMA Pediatrics. The primary outcome that is appropriately powered in our article in JAMA Pediatrics is the need for mechanical ventilation within 72 hours from the beginning of the noninvasive respiratory support. We regret that we did not report the partial duplication of study participants in the JAMA Pediatrics article1 and that we did not cite the previously published article. We apologize to the readers and editors of JAMA Pediatrics for any confusion this has caused.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×