ArticleHealth science reports2025
Current Practice and Barriers to Using High-Flow Nasal Cannula Among ARDS Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study of Physicians.
Article in Health science reports, 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.
- Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with Mild to Moderate COPD Among Healthcare Providers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly utilized in clinical practice; however, the perspectives of physicians on its use and associated barriers in managing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Saudi Arabia remain unexplored. This study aims to evaluate HFNC practices and identify the barriers faced by ICU and respiratory physicians in utilizing HFNC for ARDS patients. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed between December 22, 2022, and July 15, 2023, to respiratory and ICU physicians in Saudi Arabia. Data are presented as frequencies and percentages. Results: A total of 987 responses were analyzed, revealing that physicians perceive HFNC as beneficial for relieving shortness of breath (686, or 69.5%), helping with speech and eating (649, or 65.8%), and potentially preventing intubation (629, or 63.7%). In terms of HFNC practice, 445 respondents (45.1%) reported that its use is governed by institutional protocols, while 679 (68.8%) indicated that the decision to initiate therapy is made by physicians. Additionally, 458 (46.4%) stated that a flow rate of ≥ 15 L/min is necessary to start HFNC therapy. When considering initial settings, nearly half (455, or 46.09%) chose a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO Conclusion: Physicians demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits associated with HFNC therapy. However, variations in initial settings and the absence of standardized guidelines present significant challenges to its optimal application in patients with ARDS.
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.