ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva2021
Clinical practices related to high-flow nasal cannulas in pediatric critical care in Brazil compared to other countries: a Brazilian survey.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe current clinical practices related to the use of high-flow nasal cannula therapy by Brazilian pediatric intensivists and compare them with those in other countries.
methodsA questionnaire was administered to pediatric intensivists in North and South America, Asia, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand for the main study. We compared the Brazilian cohort with cohorts in the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, and India.
resultsOverall, 501 physicians responded, 127 of which were in Brazil. Only 63.8% of respondents in Brazil had a high-flow nasal cannula available, in contrast to 100% of respondents in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. The attending physician was responsible for the decision to start a high-flow nasal cannula according to 61.2% respondents in Brazil, 95.5% in the United Kingdom, 96.6% in the United States, 96.8% in Canada, and 84.7% in India. A total of 62% of respondents in Brazil, 96.3% in the United Kingdom, 96.6% in the United States, 96.8% in Canada, and 84.7% in India reported that the attending physician was responsible for the decision to wean or modify the high-flow nasal cannula settings. When high-flow nasal cannula therapy failed due to respiratory distress/failure, 82% of respondents in Brazil would consider a trial of noninvasive ventilation before endotracheal intubation, compared to 93% in the United Kingdom, 88% in the United States, 91.5% in Canada, and 76.8% in India. More Brazilian intensivists (6.5%) than intensivists in the United Kingdom, United States, and India (1.6% for all) affirmed using sedatives frequently with high-flow nasal cannulas.
conclusionThe availability of high-flow nasal cannulas in Brazil is still not widespread. There are some divergences in clinical practices between Brazilian intensivists and their colleagues abroad, mainly in processes and decision-making about starting and weaning high-flow nasal cannula therapy.
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.