SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist vs. Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Adults and Children With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monitoring the patient-ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs pressure support ventilation: short-term effects on shunt and dead space after cardiac surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Physiology-guided mechanical ventilation: Monitoring, proportional assist, and bounded automation.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Application of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA): a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanical ventilation (MV), resulting in increased complications of MV. Despite there being some pieces of evidence for the efficacy of improving the synchronization of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), controversy over its physiological and clinical outcomes remain. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative impact of NAVA or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) modes on the important outcomes of adults and children with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: Qualified studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and additional quality evaluations up to October 5, 2021. The primary outcome was asynchrony index (AI); secondary outcomes contained the duration of MV, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, the incidence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia, pH, and Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in Arterial Blood (PaCO2). A statistical heterogeneity for the outcomes was assessed using the Results: Eighteen eligible studies ( Conclusions: Our study suggests that NAVA ameliorates the synchronization of patient-ventilator and improves the important clinical outcomes of patients with ARF compared with CMV modes.
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.