Trial reportEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Comparison of the effects of high-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure treatments as respiratory physiotherapy interventions for children with asthma exacerbation: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04033666 (Comparative Analysis of Non-invasive Ventilatory Support Modes), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Comparative Analysis of Non-invasive Ventilatory Support Modes: High Flow Nasal Cannula and Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Asthmatic Children
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Respiratory Support Modalities in Pediatric Asthma Exacerbation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
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
objectiveA high-flow nasal cannula is a practical and safe instrument that can be used for children with asthma exacerbation and promotes beneficial outcomes such as improved asthma severity scores and reduced hospitalization durations, salbutamol use, and oxygen use. To evaluate and compare the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula treatment and that of bilevel positive airway pressure treatment as respiratory physiotherapy interventions for pediatric patients who are hospitalized because of asthma exacerbation.
methodsDuring a randomized clinical trial, treatment was performed using a high-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure for hospitalized children with asthma. After randomization, data regarding lung function, vital signs, and severity scores (pulmonary index, pediatric asthma severity, and pediatric asthma scores) were collected.
resultsFifty patients were included in this study (25 in the Bilevel Group and 25 in the high-flow nasal cannula group). After 45 minutes of therapy, an improvement in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second was observed. The high-flow nasal cannula group required fewer days of oxygen (O2) use, used fewer bronchodilators (number of salbutamol puffs), and required shorter hospitalization periods than the Bilevel Group (6.1±1.9 versus 4.3±1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -5.0 to -0.6).
conclusionA high-flow nasal cannula is a viable option for the treatment of asthma exacerbation because it can reduce the hospitalization period and the need for O2 and bronchodilators. Additionally, it is a safe and comfortable treatment modality that is as effective as bilevel positive airway pressure.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04033666.
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.