Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27405336›Full record

ReviewScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2016

High flow nasal cannula in children: a literature review.

Ingvild Bruun Mikalsen, Peter Davis, Knut Øymar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingvild Bruun MikalsenDepartment of Paediatrics, Stavanger University Hospital, P.O. Box 8100, N-4068, Stavanger, Norway. miib@sus.no.
Peter DavisDepartment of Paediatric Intensive Care, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK.
Knut ØymarDepartment of Paediatrics, Stavanger University Hospital, P.O. Box 8100, N-4068, Stavanger, Norway.
Bristol Royal Hospital for Children · GBStavanger University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively new non-invasive ventilation therapy that seems to be well tolerated in children. Recently a marked increase in the use of HFNC has been seen both in paediatric and adult care settings. The aim of this study was to review the current knowledge of HFNC regarding mechanisms of action, safety, clinical effects and tolerance in children beyond the newborn period.We performed a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane up to 12th of May 2016. Twenty-six clinical studies including children on HFNC beyond the newborn period with various respiratory diseases hospitalised in an emergency department, paediatric intensive care unit or general ward were included. Five of these studies were interventional studies and 21 were observational studies. Thirteen studies included only children with bronchiolitis, while the other studies included children with various respiratory conditions. Studies including infants hospitalised in a neonatal ward, or adults over 18 years of age, as well as expert reviews, were not systematically evaluated, but discussed if appropriate.The available studies suggest that HFNC is a relatively safe, well-tolerated and feasible method for delivering oxygen to children with few adverse events having been reported. Different mechanisms including washout of nasopharyngeal dead space, increased pulmonary compliance and some degree of distending airway pressure may be responsible for the effect. A positive clinical effect on various respiratory parameters has been observed and studies suggest that HFNC may reduce the work of breathing. Studies including children beyond the newborn period have found that HFNC may reduce the need of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and invasive ventilation, but these studies are observational and have a low level of evidence. There are no international guidelines regarding flow rates and the optimal maximal flow for HFNC is not known, but few studies have used a flow rate higher than 10 L/min for infants.Until more evidence from randomized studies is available, HFNC may be used as a supplementary form of respiratory support in children, but with a critical approach regarding effect and safety, particularly when operated outside of a paediatric intensive care unit.

Indexed as

CannulaBronchiolitisChildContinuous Positive Airway PressureEquipment DesignHumansNoseOxygen Inhalation TherapyChildEffectFlowHigh flow nasal cannulaMechanismsPressureSide effectToleranceVentilation

Identifiers

PMID27405336
PMCPMC4942966
OpenAlexW2472661324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.