ArticleBMJ open2017
Efficacy of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen therapy on immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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.
- High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- The efficacy of initial ventilation strategy for adult immunocompromised patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial (VENIM).BMC pulmonary medicine · 2017Trial
- Extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery for occlusive atherosclerotic disease of the anterior cerebral circulation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of immunocompromised patients has increased in recent years. Acute respiratory failure is a common complication leading to intensive care unit (ICU) admission and high mortality among such patients. The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or oxygen therapy among these patients remains controversial, according to the inconsistent results of several randomised clinical trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate whether NIV or oxygen therapy is the more appropriate initial oxygenation strategy for the immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure.
methodWe will search all the RCTs that compared the efficacy of NIV and oxygen therapy on immunocompromised adult patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure on the major databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and others), conference proceedings and grey literature. Eligible RCTs will be included in accordance with the pre-specified eligibility criteria. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Data will be extracted with a standardised form and analysed using RevMan V.5.3 analyses software. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since it is not carried out in humans. The systematic review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated extensively through conferences.
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.