ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Effectiveness of non-invasive respiratory support strategies in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Stratification of COVID-19 Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure for Response to High-Flow Nasal Cannula: A Retrospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Observational
- The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: BackgroundThe effectiveness of non-invasive respiratory strategies, namely CPAP and HFNO, in reducing the risk of mortality and tracheal intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 is not well established. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted across 3 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) from inception through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the impact of CPAP or HFNO on clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. End-points included all-cause mortality and risk of tracheal intubation. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analysis was performed using a random effects model. I Results: From the 1041 articles retrieved from initial search, 7 potentially relevant studies (n = 2831 patients) were included in the final analysis. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, non-invasive respiratory strategies reduced the risk of tracheal intubation (RR = 0.84, [95% CI 0.72, 0.98]; p = 0.02, I Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the application of non-invasive respiratory strategy is feasible as it can delay the start of tracheal intubation and reduce mortality rates among patients infected with COVID-19.
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.