ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Summary of the best evidence for adult nasal high-flow oxygen therapy nebulization management.
Review in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically search, assess, and compile the best evidence on the management of nebulization in adult patients on nasal high-flow oxygen therapy, thereby providing a reference for evidence-based nursing practice. Methods: This evidence summary was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for evidence synthesis and was guided by the '6S' evidence resource model. A systematic search was performed in multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database, for publications up to September 2024. The study selection process was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Three researchers independently performed the literature appraisal, evidence extraction, and grading of recommendations. Results: In total, 839 records were retrieved, and 13 articles were finally included, comprising 1 clinical decision, 2 guidelines, 1 team standard, 7 expert consensuses, and 2 evidence summaries. Quality appraisal using AGREE II showed all three guidelines/standards scored above 60% across all domains. Among the seven expert consensuses, most items were rated positively. From the included literature, 26 best evidence statements were extracted and summarized across seven key areas: preparation for nebulization, medication management, selection and setup of nebulization devices, proper usage, monitoring and nursing, management of nebulization in respiratory infectious diseases, and patient education. The evidence levels ranged from Level 1 to Level 5, and the grades of recommendation included both A (strong) and B (weak). Conclusion: The research has compiled and consolidated the optimal evidence for managing nebulization in adult patients receiving nasal high-flow oxygen therapy. This summary provides a structured compilation of current best practices, primarily derived from guidelines and expert consensus, which can serve as a practical reference to guide the nebulization process for these patients.
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.