ArticleRespiratory investigation2022
Clinical practice of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19 pandemic era: a cross-sectional survey of respiratory physicians.
Article in Respiratory investigation, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Practice and Barriers to Using High-Flow Nasal Cannula Among ARDS Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study of Physicians.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in ARDS Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Respiratory Therapists.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the rapid widespread use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, its indications and appropriate use as perceived by physicians remain poorly known.
methodsIn September 2021, we sent a questionnaire to each respiratory physician from 15 institutions in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In this survey, we compared the perceptions of HFNC indications and interventions during implementation to those of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Furthermore, this study examined concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress experienced among respondents.
resultsOf the 140 respiratory physicians contacted, 87 (62.1%) completed the survey. The results indicate that 96.5% of the respondents agreed with the indication of HFNC for COVID-19, whereas only 13.7% agreed with NIV. The physicians reported that patients with HFNC had a lower frequency of sustained sedation, physical restraint, and implementation in the ICU than that of patients with NIV and IMV. The HFNC was introduced as a respiratory modality following conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with COVID-19, regardless of full or do-not-intubate codes. Additionally, they reported that patients with COVID-19 switched from COT to HFNC significantly earlier than those without COVID-19. Simultaneously, this survey revealed persistent concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress (47.1% and 53.3%, respectively) among respiratory physicians during HFNC use.
conclusionClinically, HFNC is considered useful for COVID-19 patients by most respiratory physicians. However, HFNC remains a concern for COVID-19 spread and psychological distress among several respiratory physicians, indicating the need for urgent action.
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.