SynthesisClinical cardiology2025
A Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation Combined With Pressure Support Ventilation in Treating Chronic Heart Failure.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular Risk During the 90-Day Vulnerable Window After COPD Exacerbations: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Establishment and validation of a machine learning model to stratify malnutrition risk in hospitalized older patients with chronic heart failure.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation combined with pressure support ventilation (NPPV-PSV) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) through a meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang databases to find randomized controlled trials and cohort studies on NPPV-PSV treatment for CHF. The period of search was set from inception until 2024. Eligible studies were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 8 studies with 568 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that compared with conventional treatment, NPPV-PSV treatment had significant advantages in several aspects: clinical efficacy rate (total effect Z = 5.10, OR = 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) [2.01, 4.83], p = 0.000), heart rate (HR) (total effect Z = 16.26, MD = -10.50, 95% CI [-11.76, -9.23], p = 0.000), respiratory rate (RR) (total effect Z = 16.50, MD = -6.44, 95% CI [-7.20, -5.67], p = 0.000) and oxygen saturation (total effect Z = 12.40, MD = 0.09, 95% CI [0.08, 0.11], p = 0.000).
conclusionNoninvasive positive pressure ventilation combined with PSV treatment significantly improves clinical symptoms, reduces HR and RR and increases oxygen saturation in patients with CHF, showing superior effects compared with conventional treatment.
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.