Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 633

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Masip, Josep, Roque, Marta, Sánchez, Bernat, Fernández, Rafael, Subirana, Mireia, Expósito, José Angel·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: In patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema noninvasive ventilation may reduce intubation rate, but the impact on mortality and the superiority of one technique over another have not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the short-term effect of noninvasive ventilation on major clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to October 2005) and Cochrane databases (library issue 4, 2005) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published from January 1, 1988, to October 31, 2005. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Included trials were all parallel studies comparing noninvasive ventilation to conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Comparisons of different techniques, either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV), were also included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen trials were selected. Overall, noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the mortality rate by nearly 45% compared with conventional therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.78; P = .72 for heterogeneity). The results were significant for CPAP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = .44 for heterogeneity) but not for NIPSV (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.05; P = .76 for heterogeneity), although there were fewer studies in the latter. Both modalities showed a significant decrease in the "need to intubate" rate compared with conventional therapy: CPAP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58; P = .21 for heterogeneity), NIPSV (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .24 for heterogeneity), and together (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P = .20 for heterogeneity). There were no differences in intubation or mortality rates in the analysis of studies comparing the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation reduces the need for intubation and mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Although the level of evidence is higher for CPAP, there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs NIPSV.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.294.24.3124

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 633

Metadata

Authors
Masip, J., Roque, M., Sánchez, B., Fernández, R., Subirana, M., & Expósito, J. A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-12-28
Volume
294
Issue
24
Pages
3124
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1986096796
Cited by
633
References
3
FWCI
28.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.294.24.3124
The paper
Masip, J., Roque, M., Sánchez, B., Fernández, R., Subirana, M., & Expósito, J. A. (2005). Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.24.3124

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.