SynthesisThe clinical respiratory journal2023
High flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The clinical respiratory journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Non-Invasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Pooled it
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation in the Treatment of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A comparative analysis of non-invasive respiratory support modalities in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- High flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Pooled it
- High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Management of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with high-flow nasal cannula therapy: A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- The Prognostic Significance of Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index in Patients With Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Noninvasive Ventilatory Support.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Article
- High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for AECOPD with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can lead to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF), often treated using noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Emerging research suggests the potential utility of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for AHRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of HFNC versus NIV on AHRF management. A search of electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete), web sources, and trial registries was last conducted on 9 February 2023. Quality and risk of bias assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were used to synthesise data. Seven randomised controlled trials were included. No statistically significant differences between HFNC and NIV were found within the following outcomes of interest: (i) correction of pCO2: standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.34 to 0.02), p = 0.08; (ii) correction of pH: SMD = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.14), p = 0.59; (iii) correction of pO2: SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.09), p = 0.22; (iv) intubation rates: risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.82), p = 0.71; (v) mortality rates: RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.56), p = 0.61; and (vi) treatment switch: RR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.43 to 3.94), p = 0.64. More controlled trials with large sample sizes are required to investigate the management of AHRF of various aetiologies. HFNC may be used as a final exhaustive measure for COPD-related AHRF where NIV is not tolerated, and when it is not clinically indicated to extend to endotracheal intubation.
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.