Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34767767›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2022

Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research.

Sampath Weerakkody, Pietro Arina, James Glenister, Sam Cottrell, Giacomo Boscaini-Gilroy, Mervyn Singer, Hugh E Montgomery

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sampath WeerakkodyCentre for Human Health and Performance, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: s.weerakkody@ucl.ac.uk.
Pietro ArinaBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James GlenisterThe Whittington Health NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sam CottrellDigital Publishing, Office for National Statistics, Fareham, Hampshire, UK.
Giacomo Boscaini-GilroyDigital Publishing, Office for National Statistics, Fareham, Hampshire, UK.
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Hugh E MontgomeryCentre for Human Health and Performance, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; The Whittington Health NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Office for National Statistics · GBWhittington Health NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.

Indexed as

COVID-19Noninvasive VentilationRespiratory InsufficiencyHumansProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34767767
PMCPMC8577844
OpenAlexW3212762889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.