ArticlePloS one2025
Drivers of prognosis and clinical trajectories differ between COVID and non-COVID acute hypoxic respiratory failure.
Article in PloS one, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeExamine non-respiratory comorbidities that may affect prognosis in acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) and respiratory trajectories, comparing those with COVID and non-COVID etiologies of AHRF.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients with AHRF from COVID and non-COVID etiologies treated with high flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, or endotracheal intubation in ICUs in two United States hospitals.
resultsWe compared drivers of prognosis and respiratory trajectories between 241 patients with AHRF from COVID and 99 patients with non-COVID AHRF. Patients with COVID had a lower prevalence of major comorbidities or terminal illness (OR 0.14), neurologic disease (OR 0.19), goals of care limitations (OR 0.54), and shock (OR 0.11). A lower proportion of the COVID group were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) early in their AHRF course (OR 0.15); however, fewer COVID patients had improvement in AHRF in the first 7 days (OR 0.49), and a greater proportion of COVID patients required IMV on day 14 (OR 2.57). Additionally, fewer COVID patients died or transitioned to comfort care within 14 days following AHRF onset (OR 0.24), and more COVID patients had severe hypoxemia at end-of-life (OR 2.42).
conclusionsPatients with AHRF from COVID had fewer non-respiratory comorbidities or goals of care limitations, more prolonged respiratory failure and higher risk of mortality related to hypoxemia. These differences could explain why patients with COVID AHRF may experience greater benefit from disease-specific therapies targeting AHRF compared to patients with non-COVID AHRF.
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.