ArticleERJ open research2020
Nasal high-flow oxygen
Article in ERJ open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05829083 (Asymmetric), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Asymmetric (DUET) Versus Conventional Nasal High Flow Interface for Management of Hypercapnic Patients With Mild to Moderate Acute Exacerbation of COPD: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Treatment Success or Failure as an Outcome in Randomised Clinical Trials of COPD Exacerbations. A Meta-Epidemiological Study.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Flow Wave Interpretation of High-Flow Nasal Cannula.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is considered as the first-line treatment for acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) complicated by respiratory acidosis. Recent studies demonstrate a role of nasal high-flow oxygen (NHF) in AECOPD as an alternative treatment in patients intolerant to NIV or with contraindications to it.
aimThe study aimed to evaluate whether NHF respiratory support is noninferior compared to NIV in respect to treatment failure, defined as need for intubation or change to alternative treatment group, in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
methodsWe designed a multicentre, prospective, randomised trial on patients with AECOPD, who have pH<7.35 but >7.25 and
conclusionGiven the increasing number of studies demonstrating the physiological effects of NHF in COPD patients, we hypothesise that NHF respiratory support will be noninferior to NIV in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute on chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
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.