SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes between high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation in acute exacerbation of COPD: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Physiological Outcomes.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
- Author Response: High Flow Nasal Cannula Over Non-invasive Ventilation in Preventing Reintubation: Signal Bias or Both?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, direct comparative evidence on the clinical efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) remains limited and inconclusive.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted up to January 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC and NIV in AECOPD patients. Outcomes included mortality, treatment failure, intubation rates, and treatment intolerance.
resultsNine RCTs involving 786 patients were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed in mortality (I
conclusionHFNC therapy showed a trend towards a higher treatment failure rate compared to NIV, though the difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in mortality or intubation rates between the two groups.
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.