Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32489572›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2020

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy as an emerging option for respiratory failure: the present and the future.

Lucia Spicuzza, Matteo Schisano

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.1field-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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. High-flow nasal cannula in severe asthma exacerbations: current evidence and clinical perspectives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucia SpicuzzaDipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale, University of Catania, UO Pneumologia, Azienda Policlinico-OVE, Via S. Sofia, Catania 95123, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8246-8357
Matteo SchisanoDipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
University of Catania · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been considered for decades as frontline treatment for acute or chronic respiratory failure. However, COT can be insufficient in severe hypoxaemia whereas NIV, although highly effective, is poorly tolerated by patients and its use requires a specific expertise. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging technique, designed to provide oxygen at high flows with an optimal degree of heat and humidification, which is well tolerated and easy to use in all clinical settings. Physiologically, HFNC reduces the anatomical dead space and improves carbon dioxide wash-out, reduces the work of breathing, and generates a positive end-expiratory pressure and a constant fraction of inspired oxygen. Clinically, HFNC effectively reduces dyspnoea and improves oxygenation in respiratory failure from a variety of aetiologies, thus avoiding escalation to more invasive supports. In recent years it has been adopted to treat

Indexed as

high-flow nasal cannulaoxygen therapyrespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID32489572
PMCPMC7238775
OpenAlexW3024693435

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.