ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2016
Noninvasive ventilation on mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Observational studies of early versus late salvage therapies in critical care exhibit intrinsic selection bias: two meta-analyses.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Outcomes of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Their Predictors: A National Cohort.Critical care research and practice · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). [Subjects and Methods] The clinical data of 58 patients with ARDS that required mechanical ventilation in two intensive care units (ICU) was reviewed. [Results] Endotracheal intubation was performed in 55.17% of the total patients and in 39.53% of the patients who received NIV treatment. The APACHE II score for patients who only received IV was significantly higher than those who only underwent NIV (25.67 ± 5.30 vs. 18.12 ± 7.20). However, there were no significant differences in 28-day/90-day survival rates, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of ICU stay between these two groups. For patients from a NIV-to-IV group, the APACHE II scores before endotracheal intubation were higher than the scores from IV patients (26.12 ± 4.08 vs. 21.94 ± 6.10). The 90-day survival rate in the NIV-to-IV group was significantly lower than that of the IV-only group (23.5% vs. 73.3%), although there was no difference in the 28-day survival rate between the two groups. [Conclusion] The application of NIV reduces the percentage of patients requiring endotracheal intubation.
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.