SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026
High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure for noninvasive respiratory support in children with bronchiolitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) are increasingly used for noninvasive respiratory support in children with bronchiolitis, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare HFNC and CPAP in children with bronchiolitis based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI were systematically searched for RCTs comparing HFNC and CPAP in children with bronchiolitis. The primary outcome was treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Ten RCTs involving 965 children were included. Overall, HFNC was not associated with a significantly different risk of treatment failure compared with CPAP (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50-1.29, Conclusions: HFNC and CPAP appear to provide comparable efficacy for noninvasive respiratory support in children with bronchiolitis, while HFNC may reduce device-related AEs. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses further suggested that the relative efficacy of HFNC may be influenced by patient age and body weight, with more favorable effects observed in older and heavier children. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261404713, PROSPERO CRD420261404713.
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.