SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
The safety and efficacy of nocturnal noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of nocturnal noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in stable COPD remains controversial. This study evaluates the safety and clinical impact of nocturnal NIPPV compared with conventional therapy. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang was conducted from inception to July 26, 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2015 onward and evaluating nocturnal NIPPV in stable COPD were included. Primary outcomes were arterial blood gases (PaCO2, PaO2, pH); secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Pooled effects were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. PROSPERO Registration (CRD42024608837). Results: Eight RCTs (736 patients) were analyzed. Nocturnal NIPPV significantly reduced PaCO2 and improved PaO2, with no significant change in pH. Regarding pulmonary function, FVC showed a non-significant trend toward improvement, and no significant differences were found for FEV1 or FEV1/FVC. Notably, 6MWD showed significant improvement in the NIPPV group. For HRQoL, significant gains were observed in the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency (SRI) questionnaire, and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores were significantly reduced. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Nocturnal NIPPV is a safe intervention for stable COPD, offering physiological and functional benefits by improving gas exchange and exercise capacity, while pulmonary-function effects were less consistent. However, its effects on spirometric airflow limitation and patient-reported outcomes should be interpreted cautiously because outcome instruments and the number of available studies differed. Further high-quality RCTs with standardized protocols are needed to define its optimal role in long-term management.
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.