Observational studyRespiratory research2022
Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study.
Observational study in Respiratory research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory Support in the Emergency Department: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2026Pooled it
- High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Pooled it
- Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Analysis of Long-Term Mortality.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Outside the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Cannula Led by the Medical Emergency Team: A Pragmatic Model for Resource Stewardship.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Implementation of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy in a Surgical High-Dependency Unit: A Cohort Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Safety and efficacy of noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure in general medical ward: a prospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- In-hospital Mortality among Patients with High-flow Nasal Cannulas in the General Ward.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy in intensive care unit patients after extubation.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards. RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training.
methodsPatients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO
results150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60-80] years, SOFA 4 [2-4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50-60], FiO
conclusionIn patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data.
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.