Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment and treatment effect estimates from conventional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for each outcome

From: Preventive use of respiratory support after scheduled extubation in critically ill medical patients—a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ComparisonsNo. of RCTsI2 valuePooled result from CMADirect estimateQualityIndirect estimateQuality5NMA estimateQuality
Re-intubation rate (RR with 95%CI); test for inconsistency in the entire network: P = 0.214
 NIV vs. COT919.8%0.62 (0.46, 0.83)0.60 (0.42, 0.87)Moderate10.35 (0.16, 0.78)Low6,70.55 (0.39, 0.77)Moderate11
 HFOT vs. COT47.7%0.45 (0.27, 0.73)0.44 (0.25, 0.77)Moderate10.76 (0.40, 1.47)Low6,70.55 (0.35, 0.86)Moderate11
 NIV vs. HFOT30.0%0.82 (0.61, 1.12)0.79 (0.45, 1.39)Low1,21.37 (0.71, 2.63)Moderate61.00 (0.64, 1.54)Moderate11
 HFOT+NIV vs. HFOT1NE0.57 (0.37, 0.87)0.57 (0.29, 1.12)Moderate1NE8 0.57 (0.29, 1.12)Moderate11
Short-term mortality (RR with 95%CI); test for inconsistency in the entire network: P = 0.355
 NIV vs. COT90.0%0.60 (0.41, 0.87)0.60 (0.41, 0.87)Moderate10.83 (0.46, 1.48)Low6,70.66 (0.48, 0.91)Moderate11
 HFOT vs. COT30.0%0.93 (0.57, 1.52)0.93 (0.57, 1.52)Low1,20.67 (0.41, 1.09)Low6,70.79 (0.56, 1.12)Low11,12
 NIV vs. HFOT30.0%0.89 (0.65, 1.22)0.89 (0.65, 1.22)Low1,20.64 (0.35, 1.19)Low6,70.84 (0.63, 1.10)Low11,12
 HFOT+NIV vs. HFOT1NE1.05 (0.73, 1.50)1.05 (0.73, 1.50)Low1,2NE8 1.05 (0.73, 1.50)Low11,12
Post-extubation respiratory failure (RR with 95%CI); test for inconsistency in the entire network: P = 0.684
 NIV vs. COT578.0%a0.42 (0.22, 0.81)0.43 (0.23, 0.78)Low1,30.57 (0.15, 2.16)Low6,70.45 (0.27, 0.78)Low11,12
 HFOT vs. COT355.0%0.52 (0.30, 0.92)0.50 (0.23, 1.07)Moderate10.37 (0.11, 1.23)Low6,70.46 (0.25, 0.84)Moderate11
 NIV vs. HFOT236.0%1.14 (0.39, 3.32)1.15 (0.40, 3.35)Low1,20.86 (0.32, 2.25)Low6,90.99 (0.50, 1.97)Low11,12
 HFOT+NIV vs. HFOT1NE0.71 (0.54, 0.93)0.71 (0.24, 2.09)Moderate1NE8 0.71 (0.24, 2.09)Moderate11
Length of ICU stay (MD with 95%CI); test for inconsistency in the entire network: P = 0.255
 NIV vs. COT890.7%a− 2.18 (− 4.45, 0.09)− 2.17 (− 4.43, 0.08)Very Low1,2,30.91 (− 3.90, 5.72)Low6,7− 1.62 (− 3.68, 0.44)Very Low11,12,13
 HFOT vs. COT30.0%− 0.05 (− 0.83, 0.72)− 0.24 (− 3.76, 3.28)Low1,2− 3.32 (− 7.30, 0.66)Very Low6,7,9− 1.59 (− 4.25, 1.06)Low11,12
 NIV vs. HFOT30.0%1.37 (1.03, 1.72)1.15 (− 2.13, 4.42)Moderate1− 1.94 (− 6.12, 2.25)Very Low6,7,9−0.03 (− 2.63, 2.58)Low11,13
 HFOT+NIV vs. HFOT1NE1.00 (− 0.38, 2.38)1.00 (− 4.70, 6.70)Low1,2NE8 1.00 (−4.70, 6.70)Low11,12
Length of in-hospital stay (MD with 95%CI); test for inconsistency in the entire network: P = 0.280
 NIV vs. COT40.0%− 0.52 (− 3.58, 2.55)− 0.52 (− 3.58, 2.55)Low1,22.02 (− 1.42, 5.46)Very Low6,100.61 (−1.68, 2.89)Very Low11,12,13
 HFOT vs. COT20.0%− 0.98 (− 2.17, 0.22)− 0.98 (− 2.17, 0.22)Low1,2− 3.52 (− 7.97, 0.93)Very Low6,10−1.15 (− 2.30, 0.00)Low11,12
 NIV vs. HFOT1NE3.00 (− 0.23, 6.23)3.00 (− 0.23, 6.23)Very low1,40.46 (− 2.83, 3.75)Low6,71.75 (−0.55, 4.06)Low11,12
 HFOT+NIV vs. HFOT1NE2.00 (− 0.93, 4.93)2.00 (− 0.93, 4.93)Low1,2NE8 2.00 (−0.93, 4.93)Low11,12
Comfort score (MD with 95%CI)
 HFOT vs. COT20%− 1.96 (− 2.44, − 1.49)      
 NIV vs. HFOT1NE1.60 (0.32, 2.88)      
  1. Both CMA and NMA were performed using the random effect model. Numbers in parentheses are the 95% CI
  2. No. number, RCTs randomized controlled trials, CMA conventional meta-analysis, NMA network meta-analysis, NIV noninvasive ventilation, HFOT high-flow oxygen therapy, COT conventional oxygen therapy, ICU intensive care unit, RR risk ratio, MD mean difference, CI confidence interval, NE not estimable
  3. aP < 0.05
  4. 1Quality of evidence for direct estimate rated down by one level for serious risk of bias because of the high risk of unblinding of participants and personnel in all included trials
  5. 2Quality of evidence for direct estimate rated down by one level for serious imprecision because 95% CI include values favoring either treatment
  6. 3Quality of evidence for direct estimate rated down by one level for substantial heterogeneity
  7. 4Quality of evidence for direct estimate rated down by two levels for very serious imprecision because 95% CI are very wide and include values favoring either treatment
  8. 5Quality of evidence will be not downgraded for intransitivity in the indirect comparisons
  9. 6Quality of evidence for indirect estimate rated down by one level for serious risk of bias
  10. 7Quality of evidence for indirect estimate rated down by one level for serious imprecision
  11. 8Not estimable because no loop can be constructed for the two treatments in the evidence network
  12. 9Quality of evidence for indirect estimate rated down by one level for serious incoherence
  13. 10Quality of evidence for indirect estimate rated down by two levels for very serious imprecision
  14. 11Quality of evidence for network estimate rated down by one level for serious risk of bias
  15. 12Quality of evidence for network estimate rated down by one level for serious imprecision
  16. 13Quality of evidence for network estimate rated down by one level for potential serious incoherence