Cochrane · systematic review · CD010355
Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients
Torres, MFS, Porfírio, GJM, Carvalho, APV, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · 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
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 20%Low 2 · 40%Moderate 2 · 40%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 versionsNIPPV vs no NIPPV for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients
Population: lung cancer patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pulmonary complications NIPPV vs no NIPPV | RR 1.03 [0.72, 1.47] | 4 studies · 238 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Rate of intubation NIPPV vs no NIPPV | RR 0.55 [0.25, 1.2] | 2 studies · 69 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Mortality NIPPV vs no NIPPV | RR 0.6 [0.24, 1.53] | 4 studies · 151 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Length of intensive care unit stay NIPPV vs no NIPPV | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Length of hospital stay NIPPV vs no NIPPV | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 101 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |