SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
A comparative analysis of non-invasive respiratory support modalities in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Management of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with high-flow nasal cannula therapy: A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare different non-invasive respiratory support methods for the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: The network meta-analysis was conducted based on studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from their inception to September 10, 2024. The outcomes was treatment failure, all-cause mortality, intubation, dyspnea score, length of stay in hospital, respiratory rate, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO Results: Nineteen studies (2,022 participants) were included. The results indicated that the probability of treatment failure with face mask non-invasive ventilation (NIV) was lower than that of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.93) and conventional oxygen treatment (COT) (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16, 3.03). Face mask NIV demonstrated superior performance in dyspnea score and PaCO Conclusion: Concerning treatment failure, dyspnea score, and PaCO
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.