ReviewCureus2026
High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in the Prevention of Post-extubation Hypoxemia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
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.
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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory failure following extubation is a major contributor to patient morbidity and death in intensive care settings. While various methods exist, the relative effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in preventing reintubation remains an area of active research. This systematic review and network meta-analysis assessed these techniques in adult patients after scheduled extubation. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available up to December 2025. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. To synthesize findings, a random-effects network meta-analysis was employed, focusing on reintubation rates within a 72-hour window as the primary endpoint. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to evaluate evidence quality. The analysis included 14 RCTs involving a total of 4,146 participants. Results indicated that both NIV (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.94) and HFNC (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.97) significantly decreased the reintubation risk when compared to COT. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between HFNC and NIV (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.89). Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rankings, NIV emerged as the most effective intervention (88% probability), followed by HFNC (60%) and then COT (2%). The certainty of evidence was moderate for comparisons involving COT, but low for the HFNC versus NIV comparison because of imprecision. HFNC and NIV are more effective than COT at preventing reintubation in the ICU. HFNC serves as a dependable preventative measure due to its ease of application and performance comparable to NIV. These findings support a shift away from standard COT toward more advanced noninvasive respiratory support.
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.