SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Efficacy of preventive use of oxygen therapy after planned extubation in high-risk patients with extubation failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Immediately After Extubation Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extubation failure is common in critically ill patients, especially those with high-risk factors, and is associated with poor prognosis. Prophylactic use of oxygen therapy after extubation has been gradually introduced. However, the best respiratory support method is still unclear. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of four post-extubation respiratory support approaches in reducing reintubation and respiratory failure in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing post-extubation preventive use of respiratory management strategies, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and high-flow nasal catheter (HFNC) in high-risk patients with extubation failure were reviewed. Primary outcomes were reintubation rate and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU stay and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Seventeen RCTs comprising 2813 participants were enrolled. Compared with COT, the three respiratory support methods (NIV, HFNC, NIV + HFNC) were all effective in preventing reintubation [odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.67; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.48; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.97, respectively] and respiratory failure (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10-0.52; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.60; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.72, respectively). NIV and NIV + HFNC also reduced ICU mortality (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.74; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.85). NIV + HFNC ranked best in terms of reintubation rate, respiratory failure and ICU mortality based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) (99.3, 87.1, 88.2, respectively). Although there was no significant difference in shortening ICU stay and LOS among the four methods, HFNC ranked first based on the SUCRA. Conclusion: Preventive use of NIV + HFNC after scheduled extubation is probably the most effective respiratory support method for preventing reintubation, respiratory failure and ICU death in high-risk patients with extubation failure. HFNC alone seems to be the best method to shorten ICU stay and LOS. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022340623].
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.