Cochrane · systematic review · CD009609
High‐flow nasal cannula therapy for infants with bronchiolitis
Armarego, M, Forde, H, Wills, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · 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
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 4 · 66.7%Moderate 2 · 33.3%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
Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula compared to standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) for infants with bronchiolitis
Population: infants with bronchiolitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Length of hospital stay Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 1951 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Adverse events Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | RR 1.2 [0.38, 3.74] | 4 studies · 1789 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Change in respiratory rate at 4 to 6 hours Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 692 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Change in heart rate at 4 to 6 hours Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 692 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Need for treatment escalation Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | RR 0.55 [0.39, 0.79] | 8 studies · 2215 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Duration of oxygen therapy Summary of findings table ‐ High‐flow nasal cannula vs standard oxygen therapy (low‐flow) | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 2132 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |