ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2016
Update on clinical trials in home mechanical ventilation.
Review 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring red cell distribution width as a biomarker for treatment efficacy in home mechanical ventilation.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Observational
- Cross-sectional survey on home mechanical ventilator use: major deficiencies in a home care system in South Korea.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- National survey: current prevalence and characteristics of home mechanical ventilation in Hungary.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2018Article
- Neural respiratory drive and cardiac function in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome following initiation of non-invasive ventilation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Home mechanical ventilation (HMV) is an increasingly common intervention and is initiated for a range of pathological processes, including neuromuscular disease (NMD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obesity related respiratory failure. There have been important recent data published in this area, which helps to guide practice by indicating which populations may benefit from this intervention and the optimum method of setting up and controlling sleep disordered breathing. Recent superficially conflicting data has been published regarding HMV in COPD, with a trial in post-exacerbation patients suggesting no benefit, but in stable chronic hypercapnic patients suggesting a clear and sustained mortality benefit. The two studies are critiqued and the potential reasons for the differing results are discussed. Early and small trial data is frequently contradicted with larger randomised controlled trials and this has been the case with diaphragm pacing being shown to be potentially harmful in the latest data, confirming the importance of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in NMD such as motor neurone disease. Advances in ventilator technology have so far appeared quicker than the clinical data to support their use; although small and often unblinded, the current data suggests equivalence to standard modes of NIV, but with potential comfort benefits that may enhance adherence. The indications for NIV have expanded since its inception, with an effort to treat sleep disordered breathing as a result of chronic heart failure (HF). The SERVE-HF trial has recently demonstrated no clear advantage to this technology and furthermore detected a potentially deleterious effect, with a worsening of all cause and cardiovascular mortality in the treated group compared to controls. The review serves to provide the reader with a critical review of recent advances in the field of sleep disordered breathing and HMV.
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.