Observational studyBMJ open2021
Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate orders: a multicentre prospective study OXYPAL.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03673631 (Evaluation of Oxygenation Methods and Non-invasive Ventilatory Support in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure for Whom a Do-not Intubate Order Was Taken), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Oxygenation Methods and Non-invasive Ventilatory Support in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure for Whom a Do-not Intubate Order Was Taken: Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Institutional Variation in Life-Sustaining Treatments and Mortality Among Older Patients.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Utilization and outcomes of life-supporting interventions in older ICU patients in Japan: a nationwide registry study.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Focus on the Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) during Palliative Care in Patients with Life-Limiting Respiratory Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Bridging knowledge gaps: a bibliometric analysis of non-invasive ventilation in palliative care studies.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA palliative approach to intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate order corresponds to a poorly evaluated target for non-invasive oxygenation treatments. Survival alone should not be the only target; it also matters to avoid discomfort and to restore the patient's quality of life. We aim to conduct a prospective multicentre observational study to analyse clinical practices and their impact on outcomes of palliative high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU patients with do-not-intubate orders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicentre prospective observational cohort study comparing the three following strategies of oxygenation: HFOT alone, NIV alternating with HFOT and NIV alternating with standard oxygen in patients admitted in the ICU for acute respiratory failure with a do-not-intubate order. The primary outcome is the hospital survival within 14 days after ICU admission in patients weaned from NIV and HFOT. The sample size was estimated at a minimum of 330 patients divided into three groups according to the oxygenation strategy applied. The analysis takes into account confounding factors by modelling a propensity score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03673631.
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.