SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
High-flow nasal cannula versus standard oxygen therapy for adult acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and GRADE assessment.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is widely used as an early respiratory support strategy for adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Although HFNC may reduce the risk of endotracheal intubation, it remains uncertain whether the available evidence is sufficiently mature and whether this potential benefit translates into improved survival. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and GRADE assessment to assess HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy (SOT) in adult AHRF.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 31, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus SOT in adults with AHRF were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation and all-cause mortality, respectively. For each dichotomous outcome, the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled using a random-effects model. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed. TSA was performed for intubation, and evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE.
resultsTen independent RCTs reported across 11 publications were included. Compared with SOT, HFNC was associated with a lower risk of endotracheal intubation (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93; P < 0.01; I² = 40%), but did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.16; P = 0.85; I² = 0%). Subgroup analyses suggested a lower intubation risk with HFNC among non-immunocompromised patients, patients with COVID-19, and those with baseline PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg, although no statistically significant subgroup interactions were observed. In the primary TSA, the accrued sample size represented only 36.8% of the diversity-adjusted required information size. The cumulative Z-curve crossed the conventional significance boundary, but not the trial sequential monitoring boundary. TSA sensitivity analyses yielded consistent findings, indicating that current evidence remains inconclusive. GRADE certainty was low for endotracheal intubation and moderate for all-cause mortality.
conclusionsHFNC may reduce the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with SOT in adults with AHRF, but a survival benefit has not been demonstrated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920113What 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.