ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula with conventional oxygen therapy for preventing postoperative hypoxemia in patients with lung resection surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prophylactic high-flow nasal oxygen vs. conventional oxygen for prevention of postoperative respiratory complications: a randomized trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Trial
- The effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy on preventing hypoxemia during deep sedation extubation after laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Thoracic cancer · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients extubated after lung resection surgery remains inconclusive. Our objective was to execute a meticulous systematic meta-analysis to accurately assess the advantages of HFNC compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients extubated after lung resection surgery, by examining postoperative hypoxemia and other patient-focused outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to July 2023. We employed the revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool (2.0) to evaluate the RoB of the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to ascertain the certainty of the pooled effect estimates. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative hypoxemia. Results: Five RCTs (n=564) were included in the ultimate analysis. Utilizing HFNC rather than COT did not reduce the risk of postoperative hypoxemia [relative risk (RR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-1.49; low certainty]. Compared to COT, HFNC may significantly enhance oxygenation index within first 12 hours after extubation in patients with lung resection. There were no significant differences in reintubation rate (RR, 0.25; 95% CI: 0.04-1.54; high certainty), escalation of respiratory support (RR, 0.35; 95% CI: 0.11-1.08; high certainty), change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that preemptive use of HFNC, instead of COT, in extubated patients following lung resection surgery may not significantly impact postoperative hypoxemia incidence, reintubation rate, escalation of respiratory support, postoperative PaCO
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.