ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes between non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use in patients with acute pancreatitis.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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
backgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are widely used respiratory support strategies, but their comparative effectiveness in acute pancreatitis remains unclear. Therefore, we analyzed clinical outcomes associated with these interventions using the National Inpatient Sample database (2016–2022).
methodsThis retrospective study compared clinical outcomes between patients treated with NIV and those treated with HFNC, focusing on mortality, intubation rates, complications, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyzes, adjusting for patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and comorbidities.
resultsHFNC treatment was associated with higher mortality (25.7% vs. 15.9%), intubation rates (39.1% vs. 23.6%), and pulmonary complications (pneumonia: 35.2% vs. 23.9%; pulmonary embolism: 6.6% vs. 2.8%) compared to NIV. patients receiving HFNC had longer hospital stays (20.38 vs. 13.62 days) and incurred higher healthcare costs ($302,387.31 vs. $198,870.53) (all P < 0.001).
conclusionIn this retrospective analysis, initial management with NIV was associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced healthcare resource utilization compared to HFNC in patients with acute pancreatitis. These findings warrant validation in prospective studies.
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.