Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42347918›Full record

SynthesisJournal of evidence-based medicine2026

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation in the Treatment of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Lan Yang, Shijie Fan, Chuke Cheng, Bojiang Chen, Haoyu Wang, Yu Zhang, Weimin Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Lan YangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Precision Medicine Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Shijie FanCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, China.
Chuke ChengWest China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Bojiang ChenDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Precision Medicine Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Haoyu WangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Precision Medicine Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yu ZhangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, China.
Weimin LiDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Precision Medicine Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNoncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major ProjectSichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adults with hypercapnic respiratory failure (HRF).

methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and Weipu comparing HFNC with NIV in HRF patients. Primary outcomes were mortality and endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included blood gas values, hospital/ intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, nasal skin breakdown, and comfort. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

resultsTwenty trials involving 1835 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in mortality (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28), endotracheal intubation (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.06), PaCO

conclusionsHFNC was not significantly different from NIV for mortality and endotracheal intubation in HRF but was associated with shorter hospital and ICU stays, reduced nasal facial skin breakdown and improved comfort. Larger trials in diverse populations are needed.

Indexed as

CannulaHypercapniaNoninvasive VentilationOxygen Inhalation TherapyRespiratory InsufficiencyHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicintensive care unitnoninvasive ventilationrandomized controlled trialrespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID42347918
PMCPMC13320116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.