SynthesisScientific reports2023
Noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoxygenation strategies before intubation in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of noninvasive respiratory support on swallowing physiology, airway protection, and respiratory-swallow pattern in adults: A systematic review.Respiratory medicinePooled it
- Awake Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Non-COVID-19 ARDS: A Comprehensive Review.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Review
- A Focused Review of the Initial Management of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical benefits of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is still inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the effect of NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT)/high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in this patient population. We searched for relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINHAL, Web of Science up to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV with COT/HFNC in AHRF. The primary outcome was the tracheal intubation rate. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, and hospital mortality. We applied the GRADE approach to grade the strength of the evidence. Seventeen RCTs that recruited 1738 patients were included in our meta-analysis. When comparing NIV versus COT/HFNC, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the tracheal intubation rate was 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.89, p = 0.005, I
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.