Cochrane · systematic review · CD005975
Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age
Rojas‐Reyes, MX, Granados Rugeles, C, Charry‐Anzola, LP · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
Acute Respiratory InfectionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
8
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 25%Low 6 · 75%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
Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter for lower respiratory tract infections
Population: children with acute lower respiratory tract infections
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2) Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | RR 0.97 [0.52, 1.8] | 3 studies · 399 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oxygen required in the first 24 hours Litres per minute (L/min) Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Nasal obstruction/severe mucus production Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | RR 0.2 [0.09, 0.44] | 3 studies · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Nose ulceration or bleeding Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | RR 0.43 [0.18, 1.02] | 3 studies · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fighting/discomfort in the first 24 hours Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | RR 0.77 [0.46, 1.28] | 2 studies · 239 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Death during treatment Nasal prongs vs nasopharyngeal catheter | RR 0.64 [0.35, 1.15] | 3 studies · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Face mask compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children
Population: children with severe acute LRTIs
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2 greater than 60 mmHg) Face mask vs nasopharyngeal catheter | OR 0.2 [0.05, 0.88] | 1 study · 80 participants | Low |
Head box compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children
Population: children with severe acute LRTIs
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2 greater than 60 mmHg) Head box vs nasopharyngeal catheter | OR 0.4 [0.13, 1.12] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low |