SynthesisBMC pediatrics2022
Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of continuous positive airways pressure versus high flow oxygen cannula in acute bronchiolitis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory support in paediatric patients with bronchiolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Hospitalised Bronchiolitis: A Meta-Analysis.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Pooled it
- High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure for noninvasive respiratory support in children with bronchiolitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Reach, implementation fidelity, and safety of bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) therapy in children with severe pneumonia in Pakistan.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Review
- High-flow nasal cannula is an expensive and clunky placebo: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- High-flow nasal cannula use in pediatric patients for other indications than acute bronchiolitis-a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.European journal of pediatrics · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are a trend towards increasing use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC), outside of paediatric intensive care unit. Give this trend is necessary to update the actual evidence and to assess available published literature to determinate the efficacy of HFNC over Continuous Positive Air Pressure (CPAP) as treatment for children with severe bronchiolitis.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and COCHRANE Central, and gray literature in clinical trials databases ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ), from inception to June 2022. The inclusion criteria for the literature were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that included children < 2 years old, with acute moderate or severe bronchiolitis. All study selection and data extractions are performed independently by two reviewers.
resultsThe initial searches including 106 records. Only five randomized controlled trial that met the inclusion criteria were included in meta-analysis. The risk of invasive mechanical ventilation was not significantly different in CPAP group and HFNC group [OR: 1.18, 95% CI (0.74, 1.89), I² = 0%] (very low quality). The risk of treatment failure was less significantly in CPAP group than HFNC group [OR: 0.51, 95% CI (0.36, 0.75), I² = 0%] (very low quality).
conclusionIn conclusion, there was no significant difference between HFNC and CPAP in terms of risk of invasive mechanical ventilation. CPAP reduces de risk of therapeutic failure with a highest risk of non severe adverse events. More trials are needed to confirm theses results.
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.