Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35861299›Full record

SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yun Peng, Bing Dai, Hong-Wen Zhao, Wei Wang, Jian Kang, Hai-Jia Hou, Wei Tan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yun PengDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing, China.
Bing DaiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Hong-Wen ZhaoDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jian KangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Hai-Jia HouDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Wei TanDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1149-4168
China Medical University · CNFirst Hospital of Jiaxing · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC

objectivesWe assessed the effects of HFNC

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO

resultsIn all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84,

conclusionAlthough mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).

Indexed as

COVID-19Noninvasive VentilationRespiratory InsufficiencyCannulaHumansOxygen Inhalation TherapyRespiration, ArtificialCOVID-19CPAPhelmethigh-flow nasal cannulanoninvasive mechanical ventilation

Identifiers

PMID35861299
PMCPMC9340323
OpenAlexW4286374555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.