Evidence Hub

Exploring pneumonia in less than two-year-olds: comparing respiratory syncytial virus and pneumonia due to other pathogens

S. R., Gloria Vinoy, S. R, Raghavendra R. Huchchannavar

International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, 2025

70 participants

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RSV and non-RSV pneumonia in children less than two years weighing less than 10kg admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) and also study the differences in efficacy of bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (bCPAP) between the two groups.

Methods: Children with severe pneumonia (World Health Organization criteria) and moderate to severe distress (PRESS- Pneumonia Risk Emergency Score Severity criteria) were participants of this cross-sectional comparative study. They were tested for RSV and grouped. Both groups received bCPAP. Data collection included demographic details, clinical findings and outcomes.

Results: 70 children had pneumonia 18 had RSV pneumonia and 52 were non-RSV pneumonia cases. Suprasternal (p<0.05) and xiphoid retractions (p=0.034) were more prevalent in RSV pneumonia and it also required longer duration of bCPAP (50 hours versus 28 hours; p=0.023). bCPAP showed improvement in most of the cases in both groups (RSV-88.9%, non-RSV-80.8%). RSV cases demonstrated better improvement in saturation and respiratory rate within the first four hours of administration of bCPAP. Mortality was comparable between the two groups (RSV-5.6%, non-RSV-11.5%, p=0.14).

Conclusions: RSV pneumonia is associated with more severe respiratory distress and longer bCPAP support but final clinical outcomes of bCPAP were similar in both groups. This is the first study to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 70 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free