ReviewCureus2025
Schematic Assessment of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure by Exploration of Paradigm Shift in Emergency Medicine.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has gained attention as an important intervention for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in both resource-constrained and non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings. Clinical outcomes and the efficacy and failure indicators of NIV treatment are still inconsistent across a wide range of research studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of NIV in ARF by looking at treatment site effects, failure predictor variables, together with aggregated outcomes. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, this study looked for pertinent research studies from 2000 to 2025 by employing PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Adult patients who met the inclusion criteria received NIV treatment for ARF. The random-effects method calculated odds ratio pools (ORs) for outcome achievement and non-achievement across the studies. Standardized instruments that relied on the features of the study design were used to assess the risk of bias. Eleven studies (n=20,312) were included. The pooled OR for improved outcomes with NIV was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.66-2.43). Success rates ranged from 55.6% to 72.1% with common failure predictors including elevated respiratory rate, CO₂ levels, D-dimer as well as clinical indices such as respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) and heart rate, acidosis, consciousness, oxygenation, and respiratory rate (HACOR) scores. NIV was effective in both ICU and general ward settings. NIV significantly improved the outcomes in ARF that offered a viable strategy in various settings. Early identification of respiratory failure by using the validated clinical tools was essential. These findings supported broader application of NIV in clinical practice.
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.