SynthesisRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
The effects of high-flow nasal cannula on intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive mechanical ventilation in preventing reintubation in patients at high risk of extubation failure: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Critical care science · 2026Pooled it
- High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy on Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- High-flow nasal cannula therapy in a predominantly African American population with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure.BMJ open respiratory research · 2021Article
- Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study.Emergency medicine international · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in the prevention of intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients compared to conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation.
methodsThis systematic review was performed through an electronic database search of articles published from 1966 to April 2018. The primary outcome was the need for intubation or re-intubation. The secondary outcomes were therapy escalation, mortality at the longest follow-up, hospital mortality and the need for noninvasive ventilation.
resultsSeventeen studies involving 3,978 patients were included. There was no reduction in the need for intubation or re-intubation with high-flow nasal cannula (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52 - 1.01; p = 0.056). There was no difference in the need for therapy escalation (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.08, p = 0.144), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.25; p = 0.667), hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.56 - 1.26; p = 0.391) or noninvasive ventilation (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39 - 1.05, p = 0.075). In the trial sequential analysis, the number of events included was lower than the optimal information size with a global type I error > 0.05.
conclusionIn the present study and setting, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a reduction of the need for intubation or re-intubation in critically ill patients.
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.