ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Efficacy of nasal high-flow therapy versus standard oxygen therapy in hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTS.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Respiratory failure is a serious condition caused by impaired gas exchange, leading to hypoxemia or hypercapnia. Nasal high-flow therapy (NHFT) has emerged as an alternative to standard oxygen therapy (SOT). This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of NHFT versus SOT by incorporating newly published trials to guide current clinical practice. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHFT with SOT in acute respiratory failure were included. Primary outcomes were mortality and hospital stay. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in RevMan 5.4, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Sixteen RCTs ( Conclusion: NHFT shows comparable safety and efficacy to SOT in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, with no significant differences in mortality, length of hospital stay, or intubation rates. Oxygen saturation improved with NHFT, reflecting its physiological advantages. Variability in study design limits generalizability. These findings support the individualized use of NHFT. Future research should explore patient-specific benefits, standardize protocols, and assess long-term outcomes.
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.