ArticleCureus2024
The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Emergency Department and a Comparison of Its Efficacy With Noninvasive Ventilation.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation has emerged as a convenient and handy oxygenation mode over the past few years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFNC is designed to provide humidified oxygen at high flow rates to subjects in a much more patient-compliant method. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been a powerful tool in treating dyspneic patients of different etiologies, yielding positive outcomes over many decades. HFNC has the potential to serve as an alternative to NIV for acutely breathless patients, offering better patient compliance.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted with a population size of 100 patients. The patients were randomly assigned to HFNC and NIV groups and further compared based on the clinical criteria, arterial oxygen pressure (PaO
resultsBoth HFNC and NIV subset populations have shown substantial improvement in their clinical criteria in terms of respiratory rate, heart rate, oxygen saturation, PaO
conclusionThe study concluded that HFNC resulted in better clinical parameters than NIV, but the difference was statistically insignificant except for oxygen saturation. Similarly, HFNC resulted in a decreased need for intubation and less mortality compared to NIV.
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.