AI Article Synopsis

  • Acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a major reason for pediatric intensive care unit admissions, and the effectiveness of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in treating children is still uncertain.
  • This study aims to review and compare different NRS modalities' efficacy and safety for children suffering from AHRF through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
  • Methodology includes searching key medical databases for recent studies, assessing biases, and analyzing outcomes like mortality and intubation rates using statistical software, with comprehensive evaluations to determine the quality of evidence.

Article Abstract

Introduction: Acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is one of the most common causes of admission to paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) around the world, posing a serious health concern for the global community. Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) is considered effective in reducing mortality and intubation rates in adults. However, it is not yet clear whether NRS is beneficial for children and which NRS modalities are most effective. This network meta-analysis aims to summarise existing evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of different NRS modalities in paediatric patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Methods And Analysis: To identify randomised controlled trials, we will perform a systematic search of key databases (Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete and Web of Science) and registered clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN). To ensure the inclusion of the latest literature, an initial pilot search was conducted on 8 July 2024, and an updated search will be conducted after the main research work of this study. AHRF in children treated with NRS will be included. Hospital mortality, intubation rate, treatment failure rate and serious adverse events are critical outcomes closely related to patient-centredness and importance. Two authors will independently select the studies and extract the data. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2.0. In order to compare the effects of different NRS modalities, pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted using R software. Several subgroup analyses will be conducted, including analyses of different causes of AHRF. We will conduct sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with a high risk of bias and those involving neonates. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we will assess the certainty of the evidence for the effect estimates of all the outcomes.

Ethics And Dissemination: Since this research is a network meta-analysis based on published literature, no formal ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024529804.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552551PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088029DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

network meta-analysis
16
nrs modalities
12
will conducted
12
risk bias
12
will
10
non-invasive respiratory
8
respiratory support
8
paediatric patients
8
patients acute
8
acute hypoxaemic
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!