ArticleBMJ open2020
Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of nasal high-flow humidified oxygen therapy on oxygenation index and respiratory function in patients with Stanford Type B aortic dissection and hypoxemia.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy combined with ipratropium bromide on Th1/Th2 balance and inflammation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand Position Statement on Acute Oxygen Use in Adults: 'Swimming between the flags'.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2022Article
- Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO
conclusionThis systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019146691.
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.