ReviewIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Clinical Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure in Children with Critical Asthma - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Indian journal of pediatrics, 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
The most common reason for admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is asthma. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) are adjunctive therapies in the treatment of critical asthma. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of HFNC and BiPAP in the treatment of Pediatric critical asthma. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Lilacs, and ProQuest till September 2025. Bias assessment was done using the JBI risk of bias tool. In STATA version 16, 2019 software, a meta-analysis was conducted using eligible study data, with a 95% confidence interval. The analysis included five studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness of HFNC and BiPAP. A moderate to low risk of bias was demonstrated by the majority of the studies. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the HFNC and BIPAP groups in terms of the length of stay in the PICU (p = 0.48), the length of stay in the hospital (p = 0.13), the rate of escalation, the duration of respiratory support, the level of sedation, or the amount of adjunctive medication needed. There were insufficient data on intubation rates and mortality. Furthermore, there was considerable heterogeneity in the results, and the certainty of the evidence was low overall. Therefore, current evidence remains inconclusive, and well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed for definitive conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766072What 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.