ArticlePloS one2024
"Comparative analysis of predictors of failure for high-flow nasal cannula in bronchiolitis".
Article in PloS one, 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.
- High-flow nasal cannula therapy in pediatric care: A regional practice survey from KSA.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess a comparative analysis of the ROX index, Wood-Downes-Ferrés score (WDF), p-ROXI, and the SpO2/FiO2 ratio as predictors of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in children hospitalized for bronchiolitis.
methodsData were extracted from the clinical trial "Comparison between HFNC and NIV in children with acute respiratory failure caused by bronchiolitis" conducted at a tertiary Brazilian hospital (Emergency Department and PICU). The inclusion criteria were children under 2 years of age admitted for bronchiolitis who developed mild to moderate respiratory distress and were eligible for HFNC therapy. Performance was determined by ROC and AUC metrics to define the best sensitivity and specificity for each variable. Children were evaluated at 0 h, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h and 96 h after HFNC therapy initiation.
resultsA total of 126 patients were recruited for this analysis. The median age was 3 months. Ninety-one percent of the patients had an identified viral agent, with RSV being the most common (65%). Twenty-three percent (29/126) of patients experienced failed HFNC therapy and required mechanical ventilation. The best cutoff points at 12 hours were 4.5 for WDF (AUC = 0.83, 0.74-0.92), 8.8 for ROX (AUC = 0.7, 0.54-0.84), 1.45 for p-ROXI (AUC = 0.56, 0.38-0-74), and 269 for SpO2/FiO2 (AUC = 0.64, 0.48-0.74). The scores and indices were also correlated with the PICU and hospital LOS.
conclusionsThe ROX index and WDF were the most accurate scores for assessing HFNC failure considering 12-hour cutoff points. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: U1111-1262-1740; RBR-104z966s. Date of registration: 03/01/2023.
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.