Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35177091›Full record

SynthesisRespiratory research2022

The value of ROX index in predicting the outcome of high flow nasal cannula: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhen Junhai, Yan Jing, Cao Beibei, Li Li

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Respiratory research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhen JunhaiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1668-8183
Yan JingDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, China.
Cao BeibeiDepartment of Pathology, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, China.
Li LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, China. lilihbch@163.com.
Zhejiang Hospital · CN

Funding

zhejiang provincial program for the zhejiang medical and health science and technology program 2021450592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is widely employed in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) patients. However, the techniques for predicting HFNC outcome remain scarce.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched until April 20, 2021. We included the studies that evaluated the potential predictive value of ROX (respiratory rate-oxygenation) index for HFNC outcome. This meta-analysis determined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic score, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve.

resultsWe assessed nine studies with 1933 patients, of which 745 patients experienced HFNC failure. This meta-analysis found that sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, diagnostic score, and DOR of ROX index in predicting HFNC failure were 0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.76), 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.78), 2.4 (95% CI 2.0-2.8), 0.46 (95% CI 0.37-0.58), 1.65(95% CI 1.37-1.93), and 5.0 (95% CI 4.0-7.0), respectively. In addition, SROC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.79). Besides, our subgroup analyses revealed that ROX index had higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting HFNC failure in COVID-19 patients, use the cut-off value > 5, and the acquisition time of other times after receiving HFNC had a greater sensitivity and specificity when compared to 6 h.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that ROX index could function as a novel potential marker to identify patients with a higher risk of HFNC failure. However, the prediction efficiency was moderate, and additional research is required to determine the optimal cut-off value and propel acquisition time of ROX index in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240607.

Indexed as

CatheterizationNasal CavityOximetryRespiratory RateAnimalsHumansNoninvasive VentilationPredictive Value of TestsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityAcute respiratory failureCOVID-19High flow nasal cannulaPneumoniaROX index

Identifiers

PMID35177091
PMCPMC8851822
OpenAlexW4226047846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.