ReviewCureus2026
Comparison Between High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Therapy and Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) in Children With Bronchiolitis-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal noninvasive respiratory support for infants and children with severe viral bronchiolitis remains unclear. While continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has traditionally been considered the gold standard, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is a better-tolerated alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in pediatric patients with bronchiolitis-associated acute respiratory failure. We searched major electronic databases through June 2026. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts comparing HFNC with NIV (CPAP/bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)). The primary outcomes were treatment failure, as defined by the individual studies, and endotracheal intubation. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Eleven studies (seven RCTs and four observational studies) comprising 7,574 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of treatment failure between HFNC and NIV (RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.65-6.10); however, study design was a significant moderator (p = 0.0019). Observational studies reported significantly higher failure rates with HFNC (RR 7.78), whereas RCTs showed no significant difference (RR 1.11). There were no significant differences in endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.09) or pediatric intensive care unit length of stay (MD -0.16 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.47) between the groups. HFNC demonstrated a trend toward fewer local adverse events, such as nasal/skin trauma (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06-1.52), than did NIV. The certainty of evidence according to GRADE was low for all outcomes. HFNC showed no significant differences from NIV in critical clinical endpoints, including intubation rates and intensive care duration. Differences in treatment failure rates appeared to be influenced by study design, highlighting potential confounding by indication in observational data. Given its improved tolerability and trend toward reduced mucosal trauma, HFNC may represent a viable first-line noninvasive intervention for pediatric bronchiolitis.
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.