ArticleCureus2023
High-Flow Nasal Cannula as an Alternate Weaning Strategy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Weaning Patients from Mechanical Ventilation in Head and Neck Surgery: Retrospective Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Trans-nasal Humidified Rapid Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange (THRIVE) and its Utility in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery: A Literature Review.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Extubation failure is associated with increased morbidity and poor outcomes. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as a weaning method compared to conventional weaning. Methodology A total of 60 mechanically ventilated patients, aged 18-65 years, who were ventilated for 48 hours and whose underlying pathology had either resolved or was improving, were enrolled in this study. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to participate in the HFNC weaning method or receive conventional weaning. Patients in Group A were extubated and oxygen was provided via HFNC. Group B patients were given a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) per the standard protocol and extubated after a successful SBT. Results Weaning failure was found in five patients and was higher in the conventional group (three patients in the conventional group and two patients in the HFNC group). The duration of stay of patients in intensive care units was significantly higher in the conventional group than in the HFNC group. Conclusions HFNC is a better alternative to conventional weaning through SBT.
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.