Cochrane · systematic review · CD004085
High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome
Sud, S, Sud, M, Friedrich, JO, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 85.7%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsHigh‐frequency oscillation versus conventional ventilation for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome
Population: people with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes** High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mortality (at 30 days or until hospital discharge) High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | RR 0.92 [0.72, 1.16] | 8 studies · 1779 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality (at 6 months) High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | RR 0.79 [0.58, 1.08] | 1 study · 148 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Treatment failure High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | RR 0.64 [0.48, 0.85] | 6 studies · 956 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Duration of mechanical ventilation days. Scale from: 14 to 22 High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1142 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Barotrauma High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | RR 0.82 [0.51, 1.32] | 7 studies · 951 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Hypotension High‐frequency oscillation vs conventional ventilation | RR 1.02 [0.54, 1.9] | 4 studies · 392 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |