Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18268921›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2007

Non-invasive ventilation in exacerbations of COPD.

Nicolino Ambrosino, Guido Vagheggini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Nasal high-flow oxygenERJ open research · 2020
    Article
  10. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Observational
  19. Modafinil: a novel alternative to non-invasive ventilation in hypercapnic respiratory failure?International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2015
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicolino AmbrosinoPulmonary Unit, Cardio-Thoracic Department, University Hospital Pisa, Italy. n.ambrosino@ao-pisa.toscana.it
Guido Vagheggini
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials have confirmed the evidence and helped to define when and where non invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) should be the first line treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Noninvasive ventilation has its best indication in moderate-to-severe respiratory acidosis in patients with AECOPD. For this indication, studies conducted in ICU, in wards and in accident and emergency departments confirmed its effectiveness in preventing endotracheal intubation and reducing mortality. The skill of the health care team promotes proper NIV utilization and improves the patient outcome. Patients with severe acidosis or with altered levels of consciousness due to hypercapnic acute respiratory failure are exposed to high risk of NIV failure. In these patients a NIV trial may be attempted in closely monitored clinical settings where prompt endotracheal intubation may be assured.

Indexed as

Positive-Pressure RespirationHumansItalyPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory InsufficiencyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID18268921
PMCPMC2699956
OpenAlexW1485316665

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.