Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35259290›Full record

ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2022

Home Non-Invasive Ventilation in COPD: A Global Systematic Review.

Janine Dretzke, Jingya Wang, Mi Yao, Naijie Guan, Myra Ling, Erica Zhang, Deyashini Mukherjee, James Hall, Sue Jowett, Rahul Mukherjee and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janine DretzkeInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Jingya WangInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Mi YaoInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Naijie GuanInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Myra LingBirmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Erica ZhangBirmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Deyashini MukherjeeUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, United Kingdom.
James HallHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Sue JowettHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Rahul MukherjeeUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
David J MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Alice M TurnerInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
University of Birmingham · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GB

Funding

ResMed/Phillips
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Uncertainty remains around the benefit of home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and those with a recent exacerbation (post-hospital). The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) update the evidence base with studies published in any language, including Chinese language studies not indexed in standard medical databases, and (2) explore the impact of additional studies on the evidence base. Methods: Standard systematic review methodology was used for identifying and appraising studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies reporting mortality, hospitalizations, exacerbations, quality of life, adverse events, or adherence were included. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken for mortality and hospitalizations, with studies sub-grouped by population and study design. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the effect of including studies from Western and non-Western countries. Results: A total of 103 studies were included, substantially more than in previous reviews. There was no significant effect on mortality for the stable population. There was a benefit from NIV for the post-hospital population based on non-randomized studies, or RCTs from non-Western countries. There was a small but significant reduction in hospital admissions (1-2/year) with NIV across all sub-groups, and a variable reduction in duration of stay with greater reductions in studies from China. Conclusions: The evidence base on home NIV is considerably larger than previously presented. While NIV may reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life, there is still little evidence of a reduction in mortality, regardless of country. Individual participant data analysis may clarify which patients would benefit most from NIV.

Indexed as

copdhome non-invasive ventilationmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35259290
PMCPMC9166324
OpenAlexW4220826445

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.