SynthesisWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2026
Respiratory Support in the Emergency Department: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn estimated 20% of emergency department (ED) patients require respiratory support (RS). Evidence suggests that nasal high flow (NHF) reduces RS need.
aimsThis is an update of a published review comparing NHF to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in adult ED patients.
methodThis updated systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) methods reflect the Cochrane Collaboration's methodology. The search of six databases was first completed in July 2023 and then repeated in November 2025. Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHF to COT or NIV in the ED. Three summary estimates were reported: (1) need to escalate care, (2) mortality, and (3) adverse events (AEs).
resultsThe updated search identified three new studies, bringing the total to 21 eligible RCTs (n = 2158). One of the six MA conclusions was statistically significant. Compared with COT, NHF showed no SS difference in the risk of escalation (RR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.04]; p = 0.07), mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI [0.74, 1.51]; p = 0.77), and AE (RR was 0.98; 95% CI [0.6, 1.6]; p = 0.94) outcomes were found. Compared with NIV, NHF increased the risk of escalation by 86% (RR 1.86; 95% CI [1.26, 2.75]; p = 0.001), but mortality risk was not SS (RR 1.33; 95% CI [0.86, 2.06]; p = 0.20). LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Evidence suggests NHF therapy may be an alternative to COT in managing RS in EDs. While NHF may not be as effective as NIV at preventing escalation, it does not increase mortality risk, offering a nuanced approach to RS tailored to patient-specific needs. This evidence-informed decision-making can enhance patient outcomes. However, further research is needed, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on ED research.
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.