ReviewFrontiers in medicine2021
Non-invasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-discharge spirometry evaluation in patients recovering from moderate-to-critical COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Failure of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in Patients with SARS-CoV-2.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Feasibility and Short-Term SpOJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2023Review
- Analysis of combined non-invasive respiratory support in the first six waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome according to the first respiratory support.Trends in anaesthesia & critical care · 2023Article
- Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of COVID-19: a synthesis of systematic reviews.British journal of cardiac nursing · 2023Article
- Biological effects of COVID-19 on lung cancer: Can we drive our decisions.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- [Intermediate Respiratory Care Units: Questions and Answers].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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia may require a variety of non-pharmacological strategies in addition to oxygen therapy to avoid endotracheal intubation. The response to all these strategies, which include high nasal flow, continuous positive pressure, non-invasive ventilation, or even prone positioning in awake patients, can be highly variable depending on the predominant phenotypic involvement. Deciding when to replace conventional oxygen therapy with non-invasive respiratory support, which to choose, the role of combined methods, definitions, and attitudes toward treatment failure, and improved case improvement procedures are directly relevant clinical questions for the daily care of critically ill COVID-19 patients. The experience accumulated after more than a year of the pandemic should lead to developing recommendations that give answers to all these questions.
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.