Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25829958›Full record

ReviewAnnals of thoracic medicine

Lights and shadows of non-invasive mechanical ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.

Jose Luis Lopez-Campos, Luis Jara-Palomares, Xavier Muñoz, Víctor Bustamante, Esther Barreiro

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of thoracic medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02894190 (Development and Validation of the Beliefs About Ventilation Questionnaire), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT02894190 completednot on this map

Development and Validation of the Beliefs About Ventilation Questionnaire (BVQ)

TypeobservationalSponsorFondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSRan2016 to 2020Enrolled250ConditionsChronic Respiratory Disease
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Non-Invasive Ventilatory Support In the Elderly.Current geriatrics reports · 2019
    Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jose Luis Lopez-CamposUnidad Médico-Quirúrgica de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla ; Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Luis Jara-PalomaresUnidad Médico-Quirúrgica de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla.
Xavier MuñozCentro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain ; Department of Medicine, Pulmonology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Víctor BustamanteDepartamento de Medicina, Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Basurto, Osakidetza, EHU-University of the Basque Country, Biscay, Spain.
Esther BarreiroCentro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain ; Department of Pulmonology, Muscle Research and Respiratory System Unit Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Médiques Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Parc de Recerca Biomèdica de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESHospital del Mar Research Institute · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the overwhelming evidence justifying the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for providing ventilatory support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, recent studies demonstrated that its application in real-life settings remains suboptimal. European clinical audits have shown that 1) NIV is not invariably available, 2) its availability depends on countries and hospital sizes, and 3) numerous centers declare their inability to provide NIV to all of the eligible patients presenting throughout the year. Even with an established indication, the use of NIV in acute respiratory failure due to COPD exacerbations faces important challenges. First, the location and personnel using NIV should be carefully selected. Second, the use of NIV is not straightforward despite the availability of technologically advanced ventilators. Third, NIV therapy of critically ill patients requires a thorough knowledge of both respiratory physiology and existing ventilatory devices. Accordingly, an optimal team-training experience, the careful selection of patients, and special attention to the selection of devices are critical for optimizing NIV outcomes. Additionally, when applied, NIV should be closely monitored, and endotracheal intubation should be promptly available in the case of failure. Another topic that merits careful consideration is the use of NIV in the elderly. This patient population is particularly fragile, with several physiological and social characteristics requiring specific attention in relation to NIV. Several other novel indications should also be critically examined, including the use of NIV during fiberoptic bronchoscopy or transesophageal echocardiography, as well as in interventional cardiology and pulmonology. The present narrative review aims to provide updated information on the use of NIV in acute settings to improve the clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations.

Indexed as

COPDexacerbationsnon-invasive ventilation

Identifiers

PMID25829958
PMCPMC4375747
OpenAlexW2071484027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.