ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Post-extubation Respiratory Support Strategies in Preventing Reintubation and Respiratory Failure in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-extubation respiratory failure requiring reintubation is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The comparative effectiveness of available non-invasive respiratory support strategies, conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and the combination of NIV and HFNC (NIV+HFNC), remains debated. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of post-extubation respiratory support modalities in preventing reintubation in critically ill adults. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus were searched from 1 January 2010 to 31 May 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted non-randomized comparative studies evaluating post-extubation respiratory support applied within 24 hours of planned extubation in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-eight studies (22 RCTs and six observational studies) met the inclusion criteria. The NMA demonstrated that all active respiratory support strategies significantly reduced the risk of reintubation compared to COT. The combined NIV+HFNC strategy was ranked as the most effective intervention (P-score=0.81; risk ratio (RR) vs. COT: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33-0.84); low certainty), followed closely by NIV alone (P-score=0.79; RR vs. COT: 0.55 (95% CI: 0.41-0.76); low certainty) and HFNC alone (P-score=0.40; RR vs. COT: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52-0.89); moderate certainty). There were no statistically significant differences in reintubation rates between the active interventions (NIV+HFNC vs. HFNC: RR 0.78 (0.50-1.22); NIV vs. HFNC: RR 0.81 (0.63-1.05)). In critically ill adults undergoing planned extubation, active non-invasive respiratory support (HFNC, NIV, or their combination) reduces the risk of reintubation compared to COT. The sequential combination of NIV and HFNC ranked highest probabilistically, though direct comparisons between active interventions lacked statistical significance. The choice of support should be individualized according to patient risk profile, clinical context, tolerance, and certainty of available evidence.
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.