ArticleBMJ open2024
Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy started in the emergency room versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory distress: protocol for a French multicentric, prospective, open and randomised superiority study protocol (HIFLOWED).
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04607967 (Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Started in the Emergency Room Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Distress), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Started in the Emergency Room Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Distress
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute respiratory failure is a life-threatening condition frequently found in the emergency department. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used in emergency departments for patients with hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. However, despite the increasing number of studies, its potential advantages regarding the need for therapeutic escalation and mortality have not been precisely evaluated. Our objective is to compare conventional oxygen therapy to HFNO when they are initiated during the first hour following the patient's arrival at the emergency department, with the hypothesis that HFNO would reduce the need for ventilatory therapy escalation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentric, prospective, open and randomised superiority study. 500 inpatients will be randomised (1:1) to receive conventional oxygen therapy or HNFO. The primary outcome is a failure in the oxygen therapy defined as the need for a therapeutic escalation within 4 hours after therapy initiation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been submitted and approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes Nord Ouest IV (20 October 2020). As required, a notification was sent to the Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (22 October 2020). The research results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04607967.
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.