SynthesisBMC pediatrics2026
Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure and conventional oxygen therapies in pediatric acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a significant clinical challenge, often requiring respiratory support. While Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are standard treatments, High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) has emerged as a promising non-invasive alternative, though its benefits remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of HFNC versus CPAP and COT in treating pediatric ARF.
methodsA literature search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science until June 15, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC with CPAP and COT in children with ARF secondary to acute severe asthma, bronchiolitis, or pneumonia were included. Primary outcomes were treatment failure and intubation rates; secondary outcomes included oxygen therapy duration, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs).
resultsA total of 22 RCTs involving 6,641 children were included in this analysis. Compared to COT, HFNC was associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment failure (OR: 0.509, 95% CI: 0.42-0.61). However, there were no significant differences in intubation rates (OR: 0.796, 95% CI: 0.39-1.63) or hospital mortality (OR: 0.654, 95% CI: 0.4-1.06) between the HFNC and COT groups. Compared to CPAP, HFNC showed increased risks for treatment failure (OR: 1.343, 95% CI: 0.75-2.4), intubation rates (OR: 1.044, 95% CI: 0.58-1.89), and hospital mortality (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 0.96-10.1), although these increases did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the duration of oxygen therapy, pediatric PICU LOS, or hospital LOS between HFNC and either CPAP or COT.
conclusionsHFNC significantly reduces the risk of treatment failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy in children with ARF, though it does not differ significantly from CPAP regarding intubation rates or hospital mortality. Further research is necessary to clarify its relative efficacy and safety in comparison to CPAP. CLINICAL
trial registrationCRD420250652913.
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.