Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of main findings

From: Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient or population: Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure

Setting: ICUs, General medical units.

Intervention: Noninvasive mechanical ventilation

Comparison: Invasive mechanical ventilation

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effectsa (95 % CI)

Relative effect (95 % CI)

No. of participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

 

Risk with invasive mechanical ventilation

Risk with Noninvasive mechanical ventilation

    

Mortality in hospital

624 per 1000

416 per 1000 (276 to 570)

OR 0.43 (0.23 to 0.80)

1787 (7 observational studies)

VERY LOWb

 

Mortality in hospital- Less severe subgroup

584 per 1000

496 per 1000 (431 to 558)

OR 0.70 (0.54 to 0.90)

1380 (2 observational studies)

LOW

 

Mortality in ICU

549 per 1000

339 per 1000 (226 to 464)

OR 0.42 (0.24 to 0.71)

2148 (9 observational studies)

LOWb,c

 

Mortality in ICU- AIDS subgroup

576 per 1000

230 per 1000 (98 to 440)

OR 0.22 (0.08 to 0.58)

93 (2 observational studies)

MODERATEc

 

Mortality in ICU-Hematological malignancy and BMT subgroup

543 per 1000

443 per 1000 (348 to 543)

OR 0.67 (0.45 to 1.00)

1816 (6 observational studies)

VERY LOWd

 

Mortality in ICU Hematological malignancy and solid tumors subgroup

613 per 1000

222 per 1000 (137 to 337)

OR 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32)

239 (1 observational study)

LOW

 

30-day mortality

749 per 1000

503 per 1000 (396 to 616)

OR 0.34 (0.22 to 0.54)

335 (2 observational studies)

MODERATEc

 
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  4. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. CI confidence interval; OR odds ratio; MD mean difference
  7. aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95 % confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95 % CI)
  8. bSubstantial heterogeneity may be due to methodological variations among studies and clinical variations among participants
  9. cUpgraded due to large sample size and/or large outcome events
  10. d95 % confidence interval up to 1