Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37019458›Full record

SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2023

Noninvasive respiratory support after extubation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Annalisa Boscolo, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Matteo Zatta, Michele Salvagno, Martina Tassone, Chiara Pretto, Arianna Peralta, Luisa Muraro, Francesco Zarantonello and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Annalisa BoscoloDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-4159
Tommaso PettenuzzoInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6745-8919
Nicolò SellaInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.
Matteo ZattaDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Michele SalvagnoDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Martina TassoneDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Chiara PrettoDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Arianna PeraltaInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.
Luisa MuraroInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.
Francesco ZarantonelloInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5217-9669
Andrea BruniIntensive Care Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Hospital Mater Domini, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Federico GeraldiniInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.
Alessandro De CassaiInstitute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padova, Italy.
Paolo NavalesiDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padova, Italy paolo.navalesi@unipd.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3733-3453
University of Padua · ITMagna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen, bi-level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure (noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), for preventing and treating post-extubation respiratory failure is still unclear. Our objective was to assess the effects of NRS on post-extubation respiratory failure, defined as re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and time to re-intubation. Subgroup analyses considered "prophylactic"

methodsWe undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (Research Registry: reviewregistry1435). PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science were searched (from inception until 22 June 2022). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of NRS after extubation in ICU adult patients were included.

results32 RCTs entered the quantitative analysis (5063 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, NRS overall reduced re-intubations and VAP (moderate certainty). NIV decreased hospital mortality (moderate certainty), and hospital and ICU LOS (low and very low certainty, respectively), and increased discomfort (moderate certainty). Prophylactic NRS did not prevent extubation failure in low-risk or hypoxaemic patients.

conclusionProphylactic NRS may reduce the rate of post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU patients.

Indexed as

Noninvasive VentilationPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedRespiratory InsufficiencyAdultAirway ExtubationHumansOxygenRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialOxygen

Identifiers

PMID37019458
PMCPMC10074166
OpenAlexW4362613208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.