ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
A randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal oxygen versus non-rebreathing oxygen face mask therapy in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- High-flow nasal therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy in mild COVID-19 hypoxaemia: a Bayesian reanalysis of the COVID-HIGH Trial.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Risk of bias in published randomised controlled trials.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Thrust on airway research - Exploring the publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Healthcare research data sharing and academic journal: A challenging but fruitful initiative.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: A major limitation to providing oxygen therapy by high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) delivery devices is its availability and therefore as an alternative many clinicians use a standard non rebreathing face mask (NRBM) in order to oxygenate their patients where low-flow nasal oxygen or simple facemask oxygen is not providing adequate respiratory support to achieve the target peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO Methods: In this prospective open labelled study, 122 COVID-19 patients presenting with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) were randomised to receive either HFNO or NRBM to achieve the target SpO Results: The device failure rate was significantly higher in HFNO group (39% versus 21%, P = 0.030). Oxygen support with NRBM resulted in a reduced all mortality rate over HFNO (26.2% versus 45%) but the mortality rate after treatment failure in either group (HFNO or NRBM) remained high (91% versus 92%). Conclusion: Oxygen support with NRBM results in both reduced device failure rate and higher survival among patients of COVID-19 with AHRF.
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.