Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266518›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

F S F Ram, J Picot, J Lightowler, J A Wedzicha

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 550 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Feasibility of Early Noninvasive Ventilation Strategy for Patients with Acute Onset Shortness of Breath in Emergency Department - A Prospective Interventional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Non-invasive ventilation in the ED: Whom, When, How?Turkish journal of emergency medicine · 2018
    Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. [Pain, agitation and delirium in acute respiratory failure].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Emergency department management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and factors associated with hospitalization.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

F S F RamNational Collaborating Centre for Women and Children's Health, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London, UK, NW1 4RG. fsfram@yahoo.co.uk
J Picot
J Lightowler
J A Wedzicha
St James's University Hospital · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBYahoo (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is being used increasingly in the management of patients admitted to hospital with acute respiratory failure secondary to an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of NPPV in the management of patients with respiratory failure due to an acute exacerbation of COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: An initial search was performed using the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and other relevant electronic databases. An updated search was conducted in September 2003 and another in April 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing NPPV plus usual medical care (UMC) versus UMC alone were selected. Trials needed to recruit adult patients admitted to hospital with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD and with PaCO2 > 6 kPa (45 mmHg). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality of the studies and abstracted the data. MAIN

resultsFourteen studies were included in the review. NPPV resulted in decreased mortality (Relative Risk 0.52; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.76), decreased need for intubation (RR 0.41; 95%CI 0.33 to 0.53), reduction in treatment failure (RR 0.48; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.63), rapid improvement within the first hour in pH (Weight Mean Difference 0.03; 95%CI 0.02 to 0.04), PaCO2 (WMD -0.40 kPa; 95%CI -0.78 to -0.03) and respiratory rate (WMD -3.08 bpm; 95%CI -4.26 to -1.89). In addition, complications associated with treatment (RR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.60) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.24 days; 95%CI -4.42 to -2.06) was also reduced in the NPPV group. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsData from good quality randomised controlled trials show benefit of NPPV as first line intervention as an adjunct therapy to usual medical care in all suitable patients for the management of respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of COPD. NPPV should be considered early in the course of respiratory failure and before severe acidosis ensues, as a means of reducing the likelihood of endotracheal intubation, treatment failure and mortality.

Indexed as

AdultHumansPositive-Pressure RespirationPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID15266518
OpenAlexW2124129697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.