ROX index as a good predictor of high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Prediction of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) may improve clinical management and stratification of patients for optimal treatment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine performance of ROX index as a predictor of HFNC failure.

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson (2002)

The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 5515 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2011)

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

0 comments Cited 4921 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

Jill Hayden, Danielle van der Windt, Jennifer L Cartwright … (2013)

Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.

0 comments Cited 723 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Crit Care

Title: Journal of critical care

Publisher: Elsevier BV

ISSN (Electronic): 1557-8615

ISSN (Print): 0883-9441

Publication date (Electronic): December 2021

Volume: 66

Affiliations

[1 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. Electronic address: dr.jay_prakash@rediffmail.com.

[2 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.

[3 ] Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

[4 ] Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

[5 ] Professor of Neurology and Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.

Article

Publisher Item ID: S0883-9441(21)00184-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.08.012

PMC ID: 8424061

PubMed ID: 34507079

SO-VID: 93d5ba02-011f-4ec5-8373-42600eb19e6a

History

Keywords: COVID-19,High flow nasal cannula,ROX index,Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Data availability:

Keywords: COVID-19, High flow nasal cannula, ROX index, Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

ROX index as a good predictor of high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 19

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 412

Cited by 49

Most referenced authors 750