ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2022
The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen for asthma control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Respiratory Support Modalities in Pediatric Asthma Exacerbation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Exploring Oxygen Therapy as a Supporting Treatment for Asthma: Current Insights and Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for asthma exacerbation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- High-flow nasal cannula in severe asthma exacerbations: current evidence and clinical perspectives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control remains controversial. Aim: This meta-analysis aims to explore the influence of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy on asthma control. Material and methods: We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control. Results: Four RCTs are included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared with conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, high-flow oxygen is associated with a significantly lower dyspnoea score (standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.08 to -0.17; Conclusions: High-flow oxygen may benefit to reduce/may be more beneficial in reducing the dyspnoea score than conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, but shows no improvement in PaCO
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.