SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of nasal high-flow therapy versus standard oxygen therapy in hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTS.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- High-flow nasal therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy in mild COVID-19 hypoxaemia: a Bayesian reanalysis of the COVID-HIGH Trial.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Non-Invasive Ventilation Therapy Implementation in Medical Wards-A Scoping Review to Understand Hospitals' Protocols and Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Cannula in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19 with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results of Single Centre Study in Vietnam.Pulmonary therapy · 2024Article
- Implementing Oxygen Therapy in Medical Wards-A Scoping Review to Understand Health Services Protocols and Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predictors of high-flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients in a northern Peruvian hospital.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- High-Flow Oxygen Therapy as the Cause of Oxygen Scarcity: The Limitations of Lumping and the Curse of Complexity.Respiratory care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.
objectivesWe systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.
designThis study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO
resultsIn total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82,
conclusionCompared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO
trial registrationThis systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.