Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35340968›Full record

ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of oxygenation using high flow nasal cannula vs. conventional nasal cannula during procedural sedation for endoscopic ultrasound: A pilot study.

Kamalendra Shukla, Badal Parikh, Alok Kumar, Monish Nakra

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kamalendra ShuklaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
Badal ParikhDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
Alok KumarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
Monish NakraDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
Army Hospital Research and Referral · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS. Material and Methods: Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC ( Results: SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events ( Conclusion: HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure.

Indexed as

Cannulaendoscopyendosonographyoxygen inhalation therapypatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35340968
PMCPMC8944360
OpenAlexW4205422952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.