ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
New puzzles for the use of non-invasive ventilation for immunosuppressed patients.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: the importance of ventilator settings.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
On October 27, 2015, Lemile and colleagues published an article in JAMA entitled "Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation vs. Oxygen Therapy on Mortality among Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial", which investigated the effects of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in 28-day mortality of 374 critically ill immunosuppressed patients. The authors found that among immunosuppressed patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure, early NIV compared with oxygen therapy alone did not reduce 28-day mortality. Furthermore, different from the previous publications, there were no significant differences in ICU-acquired infections, duration of mechanical ventilation, or lengths of ICU or hospital stays. The study power was limited, median oxygen flow used was higher than used before or 9 L/min, NIV settings provided tidal volumes higher than what is considered protective nowadays or from 7 to 10 mL/kg of ideal body weight and the hypoxemic respiratory failure was moderate to severe (median PaO2/FIO2 was around 140), a group prone to failure in noninvasive ventilatory support. Doubts arose regarding the early use of NIV in immunosuppressed critically ill patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic respiratory failure that need to be solved in the near future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.