High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 4 Summary of findings

Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects^* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Outcomes	Risk with COT	Risk with HFNC	Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Postextubation respiratory failure	219 per 1000	136 per 1000 (92 to 202)	RR 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92)	1067 (5 RCTs)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ High
PaO₂ (mmHg)	The mean paO₂ was 83.63 mmHg	The mean paO2 in the intervention group was 89.39 mmHg (75.91 to 102.86 mmHg)	–	497 (5 RCTs)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ High
Respiratory rates (breaths per minute)	The mean respiratory rates was 23.24 breaths per minute	The mean respiratory rates in the intervention group was 20.4 breaths per minute (18.84 to 21.95 breaths per minute)	–	311 (5 RCTs)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ High	Respiratory rates obtained from the study by Maggiore and colleague was reported with cartograms, and we extracted data with DigitizeIt software (Braunschweig, Germany).
Reintubation	82 per 1000	48 per 1000 (25 to 91)	RR 0.58 (0.30 to 1.11)	1562 (7 RCTs)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ High

Patient or population: patients after planned extubation
Setting:
Intervention: HFNC
Comparison: COT
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence:
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate—the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited—the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate—the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
CI confidence interval, RR risk ratio

ISSN: 1364-8535