CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Respiratory Support and MechanismsObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in Non-COPD and non-trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
AlYami, MarjaA, AlAhmari, MohammedD, Alotaibi, Hajed, AlRabeeah, Saad, AlBalawi, Ibrahim, Mubasher, Mohamed·2015·Annals of Thoracic Medicine
DOI 10.4103/1817-1737.146855PMC PMC4286839
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been widely supported in the past two decades as an effective application in avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and reducing associated mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) patients. However, the efficacy of NIV in AHRF patients, non-related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and trauma is still controversial in the field of medical research. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NIV as an adjunctive therapy in non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients. Data of 11 randomized control trials (RCTs), which were conducted between 1990 and 2010 to determine the efficacy of NIV in non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients, were reviewed from the PUBMED, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Parameters monitored in this study included the ETI rate, fatal complications, mortality rate of patients, and their ICU and hospital duration of stay. Overall results showed a statistically significant decrease in the rate of ETI, mortality, and fatal complications along with reduced ICU and hospital length of stay in non-COPD and non-trauma AHRF patients of various etiologies. This systematic review suggests that non-COPD and non-trauma AHRF patients can potentially benefit from NIV as compared with conventional treatment methods. Observations from various cohort studies, observational studies, and previously published literature advocate on the efficacy of NIV for treating non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients. However, considering the diversity of studied populations, further studies and more specific trials on less heterogeneous AHRF patient groups are needed to focus on this aspect.

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 · 10.4103/1817-1737.146855

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Data selection criteria for the current systematic review
Figure 1 Data selection criteria for the current systematic reviewCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Comparative results of RCTs by Antonelli et al. and Hilbert et al. on immunosuppressed AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 2 Comparative results of RCTs by Antonelli et al. and Hilbert et al. on immunosuppressed AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Comparative result of the RCT by Declaux et al. on AHRF patients with ALI showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 3 Comparative result of the RCT by Declaux et al. on AHRF patients with ALI showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Comparative result of the RCT by Keenan et al. on post-extubation AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 4 Comparative result of the RCT by Keenan et al. on post-extubation AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Comparative results of RCTs by Confalonieri et al. and Ferrer et al. on heterogeneous AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 5 Comparative results of RCTs by Confalonieri et al. and Ferrer et al. on heterogeneous AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Comparative results of RCTs by L’Her et al. and Gray et al. on AHRF patients with ACPE showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 6 Comparative results of RCTs by L’Her et al. and Gray et al. on AHRF patients with ACPE showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Comparative results of RCTs by Auriant et al. and Squadrone et al. on postoperative AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIV
Figure 7 Comparative results of RCTs by Auriant et al. and Squadrone et al. on postoperative AHRF patients showing differences in the rate of ETI, fatal complications, and mortality in patients when treated with UMC and UMC + NIVCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Forest plot contrasting the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endotracheal intubation among various studies
Figure 8 Forest plot contrasting the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endotracheal intubation among various studiesCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Forest plot contrasting the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for mortality among various studies
Figure 9 Forest plot contrasting the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for mortality among various studiesCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
AlYami, M., AlAhmari, M., Alotaibi, H., AlRabeeah, S., AlBalawi, I., & Mubasher, M.
Affiliations
  • Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences (SA)
  • King Fahd Medical City (SA)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Thoracic Medicine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2015
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
16
ISSN
1817-1737 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4103/1817-1737.146855
PMC
PMC4286839
OpenAlex
W1538028437
Cited by
14
References
32
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Annals of Thoracic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
Keywords
non-invasive ventilation, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, non-trauma patients, endotracheal intubation avoidance, mortality, ICU length of stay, length of hospital stay, fatal complication

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: Evaluation of efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in Non-COPD and non-trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4103/1817-1737.146855
The paper
AlYami, M., AlAhmari, M., Alotaibi, H., AlRabeeah, S., AlBalawi, I., & Mubasher, M. (2015). Evaluation of efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in Non-COPD and non-trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Thoracic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.146855