ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
High-flow nasal therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy in mild COVID-19 hypoxaemia: a Bayesian reanalysis of the COVID-HIGH Trial.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04655638 (High-Flow Nasal Therapy Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients With COVID-19), which is not on this 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.
High-Flow Nasal Therapy Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial (The COVID-HIGH Trial)
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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical effectiveness of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) over conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with mild COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains uncertain. The COVID-HIGH trial did not demonstrate statistically significant benefits of HFNT over COT. However, the trial was slightly underpowered, and the event rate lower-than-expected. Bayesian methods provide deeper insight by incorporating prior knowledge and quantifying uncertainty intuitively. This analysis aimed to quantify the probability of benefit or harm associated with HFNT, adopting a Bayesian approach.
methodsWe performed a Bayesian reanalysis of the COVID-HIGH trial (NCT, which randomised 364 patients with PaO₂/FiO₂ between 200-300 mmHg to receive HFNT or COT. The primary outcome was escalation of respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure, noninvasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. A key secondary outcome was clinical recovery at day 14. Bayesian logistic models with noninformative and informative priors were used to estimate the posterior probability of treatment effects.
resultsEscalation of respiratory support occurred in 23.6% (HFNT) versus 30.2% (COT) (risk difference - 6.6%, 95% CI - 15.1 to 2.1; p = 0.14). Across a wide range of priors, the posterior probability mass on the beneficial side remained high, generally > 70%, while the proportion on the harm side remained consistently low at ≤ 6% for all models, underscoring a favourable benefit-risk profile. The acute respiratory failure meta-analysis model (OR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.60-0.97), the COVID-19 randomised evidence model (OR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.60-0.97), the COVID-19 observational evidence model (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.45-0.80), and the COVID-19 Bayesian meta-analysis mixed evidence model (OR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.52-0.86) showed posterior probability mass on the beneficial side of 70%-94%. Clinical recovery at day 14 occurred in 61.5% (HFNT) versus 53.3% (COT), with 61-73% of posterior probability mass on the clinical benefit side.
conclusionsThis Bayesian re-analysis of the COVID-HIGH trial suggests that HFNT likely reduces escalation of respiratory support and improves clinical recovery in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, although the magnitude of benefit remains uncertain and sensitive to prior assumptions.
trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on December 7, 2020 (NCT04655638).
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.