ReviewLung2016
Applications of Nasal High-Flow Oxygen Therapy in Critically ill Adult Patients.
Review in Lung, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy during anesthesia recovery for older orthopedic surgery patients: A prospective randomized controlled trial.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of nasal high-flow oxygen in COPD patients.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2017Article
- Novel therapies for perioperative respiratory complications.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of nasal high-flow oxygen therapy (NHFOT) has become increasingly common in hospitals across Europe, Asia, and North America. These high utility devices provide an efficient and comfortable access points for providing supplemental oxygen to patients with variety of respiratory disorders. They are relatively easy to set up, and clinicians and patients alike give very positive feedback about their ease of use and comfort for patients in the hospital setting. However, it remains uncertain whether NHFOT improves patient survival or even reduces respiratory complications. Outcome data in adult populations are few and frequently underpowered to guide physicians for their widespread use in hospital setting. In this article, we present a review of the current technology and available studies pertinent to NHFOT.
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.