Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of findings based on the GRADE guidelines for HFNC

From: The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients at high risk of extubation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes

Number of studies

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

Relative risk

Absolute effect

GRADE

Reintubation

13

No

No

No

No

Undetected

1.10 (0.87–1.40)

15/1000 (− 19–59)

High

Mortality

9

No

No

No

Serious

Undetected

1.09 (0.82–1.46)

12/1000 (− 24–62)

Moderate

ICU stay

9

No

Seriousa

No

Serious

Undetected

− 1.03 (− 1.86–− 0.2)

Low

Abdominal distension

5

Seriousb

No

No

No

Undetected

0.09 (0.04–0.24)

− 267/1000 (− 281–− 223)

Moderate

Aspiration

4

Seriousb

No

No

No

Undetected

0.30 (0.09–1.07)

− 63/1000 (− 82–6)

Moderate

Facial injury

5

No

No

No

No

Undetected

0.27 (0.09–0.88)

− 52/1000 (− 65–− 9)

High

Intolerance

3

Seriousb

No

No

No

Strongly suspectedc

0.22 (0.08–0.57)

− 214/1000 (− 252–− 118)

Low

Pulmonary complications

3

No

No

No

No

Strongly suspectedc

0.67 (0.46–0.99)

− 41/1000 (− 67–− 1)

Moderate

Delirium

2

Seriousd

No

No

No

Strongly suspectedc

0.30 (0.07–1.39)

− 91/1000 (− 121–51)

Low

Partial pressure of carbon dioxide

11

No

Seriouse

No

No

Strongly suspectedf

− 1.31 (− 2.76–0.13)

Low

Oxygenation index

8

No

No

No

Serious

Undetected

− 2.18 (− 8.49–4.13)

Moderate

Respiratory rate

9

No

Seriousa

No

Serious

Undetected

− 0.5 (− 1.88–0.88)

Low

  1. aThe level of heterogeneity was high and was not explained completely
  2. bMany biased items are uncertain
  3. cNumber of included studies was too small
  4. dDouble blinding was not conducted
  5. eThe level of heterogeneity was more than 25%
  6. fFunnel plots show publication bias