ArticleJA clinical reports2022
Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in JA clinical reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.
methodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥18 years with AHRF and RCTs that compared two different oxygenation techniques (SOT, NIV, HFNO, or IMV) were selected. A frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The outcomes were mortality and intubation rates.
resultsAmong the 14,263 records initially identified, 25 studies (3302 patients) were included. In the analysis of mortality, compared to SOT, NIV (risk ratio [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.95) reduced mortality; however, IMV (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57-1.78) and HFNO (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.20) did not. For assessments of the intubation incidence, compared to SOT, NIV use (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) was associated with a reduction in intubation, but HFNO (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11) was not significant.
conclusionsOur NMA demonstrated that only NIV showed clinical benefits compared with SOT as an initial respiratory strategy for de novo AHRF. Further investigation, especially comparison with HFNO, is warranted.
trial registrationPROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213948 , 11/11/2020).
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.