ReviewJournal of the Intensive Care Society2015
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following oesophagectomy: Is it safe? A systematic review of the literature.
Review in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- High flow nasal oxygenJournal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Management of Respiratory Failure Caused by COVID-19 after Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2021Article
- ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find, critically appraise and synthesise all published studies so as to determine the safety and spectrum of use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following oesophagectomy.
designSystematic review.
methodsThe MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched and the quality of the studies and any bias or confounding were rated according to established protocols. Outcomes extracted included re-intubation, anastomotic leakage, length of intensive care unit stay and mortality. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Pooling of outcomes was considered if appropriate.
resultsThe search identified four papers, demonstrating the understudying/underreporting of the topic. Three were case-series and one was a conference abstract. The overall methodological quality was low. Design-specific biases and confounding were high. Despite this, the included studies conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is safe and effective and that re-intubation rates, intensive care unit length of stay, mortality and anastomotic dehiscence is lower when it is used. Meta-analysis was deemed to be inappropriate.
conclusionsDespite the conclusions and consensus of the included studies, there is no evidence to definitively conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is either safe or dangerous following oesophagectomy and the current literary evidence is inadequate. Current practice varies and is based on opinion and consensus. As such, randomised controlled studies are urgently required as current practice may cause undue harm to patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use needs to be determined.
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.