Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36065316›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2022

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation for AECOPD Patients After Extubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Zhouzhou Feng, Lu Zhang, Haichuan Yu, Xiaojie Su, Tiankui Shuai, Lei Zhu, De Chen, Jian Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Oxygen therapy in the intensive care unit.Medical gas research · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Exacerbations of COPD.Respiratory care · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhouzhou FengThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-9313-1901
Lu ZhangThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.
Haichuan YuThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-4231-2542
Xiaojie SuThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.
Tiankui ShuaiThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.
Lei ZhuThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.
De ChenThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.
Jian LiuThe First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-1825-571X
Lanzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) after extubation. Research Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: reintubation rate, mortality, complication rate, and ICU length of stay. Results: Eight studies were included, with a total of 612 subjects, including 297 in the HFNC group and 315 in the NIV group. The effect of HFNC and NIV on the reintubation rate of AECOPD patients after extubation, RR (1.49 [95% CI,0.95 to 2.33], P = 0.082). Subgroup analysis with or without hypercapnia according to the included AECOPD population, with hypercapnia, RR (0.69 [95% CI,0.33 to 1.44], P=0.317), without hypercapnia, RR (2.61 [95% CI,1.41 to 4.83], P=0.002). Mortality, RR (0.92 [95% CI,0.56 to 1.52], P = 0.752). ICU length of stay, MD (-0.44 [95% CI,-1.01 to 0.13], P = 0.132). Complication rate, RR (0.22 [95% CI,0.13 to 0.39], P = 0.000). After subgroup analysis, the reintubation rate of HFNC and NIV has no statistical difference in patients with hypercapnia, but NIV can significantly reduce the reintubation rate in patients without hypercapnia. In the outcome measures of complication rate, HFNC significantly reduced complication rate compared with NIV. In mortality and ICU length of stay, analysis results showed that HFNC and NIV were not statistically different. Conclusion: According to the available evidence, the application of HFNC can be used as an alternative treatment for NIV after extubation in AECOPD patients with hypercapnia, but in the patients without hypercapnia, HFNC is less effective than NIV.

Indexed as

Noninvasive VentilationPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory InsufficiencyAirway ExtubationCannulaHumansHypercapniaOxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicOxygenacute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasemeta-analysisnasal high-flow oxygen therapynon-invasive ventilation

Identifiers

PMID36065316
PMCPMC9440713
OpenAlexW4293558674

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.