Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41674761›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Respiratory Support in Bronchiolitis: A Narrative Review of the Evidence for and Against High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Use.

Joseph O Odeyemi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Joseph O OdeyemiInternal Medicine/Pediatrics, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bronchiolitis is a leading cause of pediatric hospitalization, and the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as respiratory support has increased substantially over the past decade despite ongoing uncertainty about its clinical benefits. This narrative review evaluates the evidence supporting and questioning HFNC use in infants and young children with bronchiolitis. Early observational studies suggested reductions in intubation rates and improved clinical parameters with HFNC; however, more recent randomized controlled trials show no consistent benefit in length of stay, duration of oxygen therapy, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfer rates, or need for mechanical ventilation when compared with conventional low-flow oxygen. HFNC may reduce treatment failure among children who do not respond to low-flow therapy, but its expanding use has been associated with higher healthcare costs, increased PICU admissions, and potential complications such as aerophagia, delayed enteral feeding, and air leak syndromes. Evidence remains limited regarding HFNC use in non-hypoxic children with respiratory distress, and current guidelines do not support "oxygen for comfort." A stepwise, evidence-guided approach to respiratory support, grounded in objective bronchiolitis scoring systems, may help prevent overuse and optimize outcomes. Further research is needed to clarify indications for HFNC, define standardized initiation and escalation criteria, and evaluate its role in non-hypoxic bronchiolitis.

Indexed as

high-flow nasal canulahypoxialow-flow oxygen deliveryrespiratory distressviral bronchiolitis

Identifiers

PMID41674761
PMCPMC12890300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.