ArticleCureus2025
The Comparative Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy Versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective observational study assessed the comparative effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in a cohort of 300 patients diagnosed with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). The mean age of the participants was 53.92 years (SD = 22.08), with 55.3% males (n = 166) and a mean BMI of 27.07 kg/m² (SD = 4.85). Patients were nearly evenly distributed between the HFNC (n = 152) and NIPPV (n = 148) groups. Survival was observed in 51.7% (n = 155), with no statistically significant difference between groups. Oxygen saturation improvement was significantly greater in the HFNC group [median SpO₂ = 94%, interquartile range (IQR): 92-96] compared to the NIPPV group (median SpO₂ = 93%, IQR: 91-95; U = 9543.0, p = 0.018). Other metrics, including respiratory rate (HFNC median = 28, NIPPV median = 29; p = 0.207), ICU stay >7 days (28.7%, n = 86), and need for intubation (35.7%, n = 107), did not differ significantly. Multivariate regression showed poor model fit (adjusted R² = -0.017), and logistic regression failed to identify significant survival predictors (χ² = 15.425, df = 17, p = 0.565). These results support HFNC as a viable, potentially superior noninvasive option, particularly for enhancing oxygenation.
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.