SynthesisRespiratory care2024
Home Respiratory Strategies in Patients With COPD With Chronic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure.
Synthesis in Respiratory care, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practices of high-flow nasal therapy in acute and chronic respiratory failure: the Hi-Flow Survey.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Comparing Highs and Flows in Patients With COPD With Chronic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Long-Term High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Patients with Bronchiectasis of Different Severity: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of high-flow nasal therapy on swallowing function: a scoping review.ERJ open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may improve chronic hypercarbia in COPD and patient-important outcomes. The efficacy of home high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative is unclear.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of subjects from inception to March 31, 2023, and updated the search on July 14, 2023. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV, HFNC, or standard care in adult subjects with COPD with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Outcomes included mortality, COPD exacerbations, hospitalizations, and quality of life (St George Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]).
resultsWe analyzed 24 RCTs (1,850 subjects). We found that NIV may reduce the risk of death compared to standard care (relative risk 0.82 [95% CI 0.66-1.00]) and probably reduces exacerbations (relative risk 0.71 [95% CI 0.58-0.87]). HFNC probably reduces exacerbations compared to standard care (relative risk 0.77 [0.68-0.88]), but its effect on mortality is uncertain (relative risk 1.20 [95% CI 0.63-2.28]). HFNC probably improves SGRQ scores (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -12.27 to -1.77]) and may reduce hospitalizations (relative risk 0.87 [0.69-1.09]) compared to standard care. No significant difference was observed between HFNC and NIV in reducing exacerbations.
conclusionsBoth NIV and HFNC reduce exacerbation risks in subjects with COPD compared to standard care. HFNC may offer advantages in improving quality of life.
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.