ArticleTranslational pediatrics2022
Efficacy and safety analysis of high-flow nasal cannula in children with bronchiolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clarification of issues brought up by 'Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Is high-flow nasal cannula better for children with bronchiolitis?Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oxygen therapy is one of the most common treatments for bronchiolitis, But traditional standard oxygen therapy is poorly tolerated by patients. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) also has many contraindications. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), as a new method of adjunctive respiratory support, has received extensive attention in oxygen therapy in pediatric. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of HFNC in the treatment of infant bronchiolitis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, GeenMedical, Wanfang, and Weipu using the following keywords: children with respiratory diseases, infant bronchiolitis, bronchiolitis treatment, HFNCs, warming and humidifying high-flow, nasal catheter oxygen inhalation, and conventional oxygen therapy. The publication time was set from the establishment of the database to October 2021. Selected articles were randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in which the patients were less than 16 years old and the experimental group was treated with HFNCs, and the control group was treated with nCPAP or conventional oxygen. After extracting the data, the study subjects were divided into HFNC treatment and control groups. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included literature, and RevMan 5.30 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Seven articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles described random sequence generation, four articles reported on allocation concealment, only two articles reported on the double-blind method. All articles described the complete blinding of outcome evaluation bias, outcome data bias, selective reporting bias, and other risk biases. The HFNC treatment group included 436 children, 405 children treated with nCPAP or standard oxygen therapy were included in the control. The results showed that the failure rate [relative risk (RR) is 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76], respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) is -7.43, 95% CI: -8.42 to -6.43], and social function (MD is 0.76, 95% CI: -0.32 to 1.83) of HFNC-treated children with bronchiolitis were significantly different to that of the control group patients. Discussion: HFNC treatment provides the same improvement in arterial oxygen partial pressure as standard oxygen therapy or transnasal positive airway pressure treatment, but it is significantly better at improving the respiratory rate of children with bronchiolitis.
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.