Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 17;2020(3):CD012935. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012935.pub2

Comparison 2. Subgroup analysis: Diaphragm‐triggered non‐invasive versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Failure of modality 1 16 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.33 [0.02, 7.14]
2 Gastrointestinal perforation 1 16 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Pulmonary air leak 1 16 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Maximum FiO2 1   Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI) ‐4.29 [‐5.47, ‐3.11]
5 Maximum Edi signal 2   Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI) ‐1.75 [‐3.75, 0.26]
6 Respiratory rate 2   Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI) 7.22 [0.21, 14.22]