Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31377696›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in postoperative patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhonghua Lu, Wei Chang, Shan-Shan Meng, Xiwen Zhang, Jianfeng Xie, Jing-Yuan Xu, Haibo Qiu, Yi Yang, Fengmei Guo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. [Weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhonghua LuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Wei ChangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5295-0145
Shan-Shan MengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Xiwen ZhangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Jianfeng XieDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Jing-Yuan XuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Haibo QiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Yi YangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Fengmei GuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on the reintubation rate, rate of escalation of respiratory support and clinical outcomes in postextubation adult surgical patients.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Index and Wan fang databases were searched up to August 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies in postoperative adult surgical patients (≥18 years), receiving HFNC or COT applied immediately after extubation that reported reintubation, escalation of respiratory support, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and mortality were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The following data were extracted from the included studies: first author's name, year of publication, study population, country of origin, study design, number of patients, patients' baseline characteristics and outcomes. Associations were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs.

resultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies (1327 patients). HFNC significantly reduced the reintubation rate (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61, p<0.0001) and rate of escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.73, p=0.002) in postextubation surgical patients compared with COT. There were no differences in the incidence of PPCs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08, p=0.21) or mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.29, p=0.14).

conclusionHFNC is associated with a significantly lower reintubation rate and rate of escalation of respiratory support compared with COT in postextubation adult surgical patients, but there is no difference in the incidence of PPCs or mortality. More well-designed, large randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the subpopulation of patients who are most likely to benefit from HFNC therapy.

Indexed as

CannulaIntensive Care UnitsEquipment DesignHumansNoninvasive VentilationOxygen Inhalation TherapyPostoperative Careescalation of respiratory supporthigh flow nasal cannulamortalityre-intubationsurgical patients

Identifiers

PMID31377696
PMCPMC6687012
OpenAlexW2966544873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.