ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2022
Optimising respiratory support for early COVID-19 pneumonia: a computational modelling study.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital twins suggest a mechanistic basis for differing responses to increased flow rates during high-flow nasal cannula therapy.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- Airway pressures generated by high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a computational study.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Prognostic analysis of high-flow nasal cannula therapy and non-invasive ventilation in mild to moderate hypoxemia patients and construction of a machine learning model for 48-h intubation prediction-a retrospective analysis of the MIMIC database.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of CPAP and FiOAnnals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Simulation to minimise patient self-inflicted lung injury: are we almost there?British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal respiratory support in early COVID-19 pneumonia is controversial and remains unclear. Using computational modelling, we examined whether lung injury might be exacerbated in early COVID-19 by assessing the impact of conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV).
methodsUsing an established multi-compartmental cardiopulmonary simulator, we first modelled COT at a fixed FiO
resultsHFNOT, CPAP, and NIV improved oxygenation compared with conventional therapy, but also initially increased total lung stress and strain. Improved oxygenation with CPAP reduced respiratory effort but lung stress/strain remained elevated for CPAP >5 cm H
conclusionsThe failure of noninvasive ventilatory support to reduce respiratory effort may exacerbate pulmonary injury in patients with early COVID-19 pneumonia. HFNOT reduces lung strain and achieves similar oxygenation to CPAP/NIV. Invasive mechanical ventilation may be less injurious than noninvasive support in patients with high respiratory effort.
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.