Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31101127›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2019

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Youfeng Zhu, Haiyan Yin, Rui Zhang, Xiaoling Ye, Jianrui Wei

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Youfeng ZhuDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Medical College, Jinan University, Tongfuzhong Road No. 396, Guangzhou, 510220, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6793-5511
Haiyan YinDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Medical College, Jinan University, Tongfuzhong Road No. 396, Guangzhou, 510220, Guangdong, China.
Rui ZhangDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Medical College, Jinan University, Tongfuzhong Road No. 396, Guangzhou, 510220, Guangdong, China.
Xiaoling YeDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Medical College, Jinan University, Tongfuzhong Road No. 396, Guangzhou, 510220, Guangdong, China.
Jianrui WeiDepartment of Cardiology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Medical College, Jinan University, Tongfuzhong Road No. 396, Guangzhou, 510220, Guangdong, China. Jianruiw@163.com.
Jinan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China NSFC81871585Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2018A030313058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients after planned extubation remains inconclusive. We aimed to perform a rigorous and comprehensive systematic meta-analysis to robustly quantify the benefits of HFNC for patients after planned extubation by investigating postextubation respiratory failure and other outcomes.

methodWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2018. Two researchers screened studies and collected the data independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies were included. The main outcome was postextubation respiratory failure.

resultsTen studies (seven RCTs and three crossover studies; HFNC group: 856 patients; Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group: 852 patients) were included. Compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.92; z = 2.38; P = 0.02) and respiratory rates (standardized mean differences (SMD), - 0.70; 95% CI, - 1.16, - 0.25; z = 3.03; P = 0.002) and increase PaO

conclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure and respiratory rates, increase PaO

Indexed as

Airway ExtubationCannulaHumansNoninvasive VentilationOxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyRecurrenceVentilator WeaningOxygenHigh-flow nasal cannulaMechanical ventilationOxygen therapyPostextubation

Identifiers

PMID31101127
PMCPMC6525416
OpenAlexW2946878968

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.