Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oxigenoterapia para las infecciones de las vías respiratorias inferiores en niños de entre tres meses y 15 años de edad

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005975.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 10 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes

    Correspondencia a: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Claudia Granados Rugeles

    Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia

  • Laura Patricia Charry‐Anzola

    Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia

Contributions of authors

MXR was mainly responsible for writing the first version of this review, and drove and completed the whole updating process. CG and LCH reviewed and approved the final version for publication of the 2014 updated review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Facultad de Medicina. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia.

    Protected the time dedicated by authors and gave monetary support to pay for full‐text articles.

External sources

  • The Effective Health Care Research Consortium, funded by the Department for International Development, UK.

    Dr Claudia Granados Rugeles was supported by the Effective Health Care Research Consortium, which is funded by UK aid from the UK Government Department for International Development to work at the editorial office of the Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Australia, to complete the update of this 2014 review.

Declarations of interest

Laura Patricia Charry‐Anzola: none known.
Claudia Granados Rugeles: none known.
Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes: none known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Sarah Thorning for designing and running the searches for updating the review. We also thank medical doctor Carolina Ardila Hani, research assistant at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, for assisting the authors in the updating process. To the Department of Clinical Epidemiology from the Faculty of Medicine of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, for giving us the time and support to conduct this review. To all trial authors who kindly shared their data to improve the quality of this review. Finally, we wish to thank the following people for commenting on the first draft of the review manuscript: Anne Lyddiatt, Hasan Ashraf, Teresa Neeman and Peter Morris.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Dec 10

Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age

Review

Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes, Claudia Granados Rugeles, Laura Patricia Charry‐Anzola

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005975.pub3

2009 Jan 21

Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age

Review

Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes, Claudia Granados Rugeles, Laura Patricia Charry‐Anzola

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005975.pub2

2006 Apr 19

Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age

Protocol

Maria Ximena Rojas, Claudia Granados Rugeles

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005975

Differences between protocol and review

As highlighted in the Types of studies section, during the development of this review we decided to consider observational studies for inclusion to respond to the following secondary objective (already considered in the protocol for this review): to determine the indications for oxygen therapy in children with LRTIs (i.e. to describe the oxygen saturation values or clinical signs that would indicate the use of oxygen therapy). The main reason for this deviation from the protocol was that, as we did not find any trials comparing oxygen versus no oxygen therapy in these patients, we could not determine the indications for that intervention for this specific population. We consider it very important that clinicians can make decisions about oxygen therapy in this population when no oximeters are available.

This decision involved an amendment to the search strategy, as described in the Search methods for identification of studies section.

As part of the update process we included an evaluation of certainty in the body of evidence by following the GRADE approach (see summary of findings Table for the main comparison).

Notes

This review has two large aims: one relates to the effectiveness and safety of oxygen supplementation therapy and oxygen delivery methods in children presenting with severe LRTI; the second aim is to identify clinical predictors of hypoxaemia in children. This last question has been addressed as a secondary objective and we tried to answer it by including observational studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms of children presenting with LRTI in detecting hypoxaemia. However, we excluded studies conducted in specific populations with other respiratory problems (such as chronic pulmonary diseases, asthma, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, complicated pneumonia) and studies conducted in specific populations with other underlying diseases. There is an important amount of evidence addressing this question in specific populations, such as malnourished children that we, as authors, consider could be included as part of the synthesis of evidence as subgroup analyses in a review that specifically aims to address this diagnostic question.

The above reasons mean that in future publications we will split this review in two reviews: 1) one intervention review: 'Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age', which will focus just on the effectiveness and safety of oxygen therapy and oxygen delivery methods, and 2) one diagnostic test accuracy review, which will focus on signs and symptoms that accurately predict hypoxaemia. In doing this we will be able to use appropriate tools for synthesising the diagnostic test evidence (such as methods for summarising sensitivity and specificity results, and the specific GRADE framework for assessing the quality of evidence from diagnostic test studies). We will also be able to include new studies conducted in malnourished children and conduct the appropriate subgroup analysis by type and severity of underlying disease, altitude where patients live, etc.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.1 Incidence of subsequent hypoxaemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.1 Incidence of subsequent hypoxaemia.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.2 Duration of tachypnoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.2 Duration of tachypnoea.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.3 Duration of chest indrawing.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, outcome: 1.3 Duration of chest indrawing.

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.1 Treatment failure to achieve adequate oxygenation.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.1 Treatment failure to achieve adequate oxygenation.

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.4 Nose ulceration or bleeding.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.4 Nose ulceration or bleeding.

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.6 Death during treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, outcome: 2.6 Death during treatment.

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 1 Incidence of subsequent hypoxaemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 1 Incidence of subsequent hypoxaemia.

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 2 Duration of tachypnoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 2 Duration of tachypnoea.

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 3 Duration of chest indrawing.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Supplemental oxygen versus room air, Outcome 3 Duration of chest indrawing.

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 1 Treatment failure to achieve adequate oxygenation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 1 Treatment failure to achieve adequate oxygenation.

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 2 Oxygen required in the first 24 hours (litres per minute (L/min)).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 2 Oxygen required in the first 24 hours (litres per minute (L/min)).

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 3 Nasal obstruction/severe mucus production.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 3 Nasal obstruction/severe mucus production.

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 4 Nose ulceration or bleeding.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 4 Nose ulceration or bleeding.

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 5 Fighting/discomfort in the first 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 5 Fighting/discomfort in the first 24 hours.

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 6 Death during treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, Outcome 6 Death during treatment.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter for lower respiratory tract infections

Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter for lower respiratory tract infections

Patient or population: children with acute lower respiratory tract infections
Settings: hospital wards and emergency rooms
Intervention: nasal prongs
Comparison: nasopharyngeal catheter

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Nasopharyngeal catheter

Nasal prongs

Treatment failure
Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2)

Study population

RR 0.97
(0.52 to 1.8)

399
(3 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

91 per 1000

89 per 1000
(48 to 164)

Moderate

107 per 1000

104 per 1000
(56 to 193)

Oxygen required in the first 24 hours
Litres per minute (L/min)

The mean oxygen required in the first 24 hours in the intervention groups was
0.08 standard deviations higher
(0.14 lower to 0.29 higher)

338
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,4

SMD 0.08 (‐0.14 to 0.29)

Nasal obstruction/severe mucus production

Study population

RR 0.2
(0.09 to 0.44)

338
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,5

199 per 1000

40 per 1000
(18 to 87)

Moderate

213 per 1000

43 per 1000
(19 to 94)

Nose ulceration or bleeding

Study population

RR 0.43
(0.18 to 1.02)

338
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,6

96 per 1000

41 per 1000
(17 to 98)

Moderate

61 per 1000

26 per 1000
(11 to 62)

Fighting/discomfort in the first 24 hours

Study population

RR 0.77
(0.46 to 1.28)

239
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low4

205 per 1000

158 per 1000
(94 to 263)

Moderate

210 per 1000

162 per 1000
(97 to 269)

Death during treatment

Study population

RR 0.64
(0.35 to 1.15)

338
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low6

145 per 1000

93 per 1000
(51 to 166)

Moderate

122 per 1000

78 per 1000
(43 to 140)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; SaO2: arterial oxygen saturation; SMD: standardised mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1One trial used quasi‐randomised methods for assignment of interventions. Evaluation of the main outcome was not blinded in all studies.
2In Muhe 1997, the 95% CI around the RR estimate is wide and imprecise.
3Evaluation of all outcomes in all trials was not blinded but SaO2 was documented by oximeter.
4In all three included studies the 95% CIs around the SMD are imprecise; the final pooled estimate is also imprecise.
5In Muhe 1998, there is a very imprecise 95% CI.
6Muhe 1998 and Weber 1995 have very imprecise 95% CIs around their estimates; the final pooled estimate also has a wide 95% CI.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter for lower respiratory tract infections
Summary of findings 2. Face mask compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children

Face mask compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children

Patient or population: children with severe acute LRTIs
Settings: children admitted to the paediatric ward
Intervention: face mask
Comparison: nasopharyngeal catheter

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Nasopharyngeal catheter

Face mask

Treatment failure
Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2 greater than 60 mmHg)

Moderate

OR 0.20
(0.05 to 0.88)

80
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

107 per 1000

23 per 1000
(6 to 95)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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).
CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SaO2: arterial oxygen saturation

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Non‐randomised. Used sequential assignment methods.
2The 95% CI around the OR estimate is wide.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Face mask compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children
Summary of findings 3. Head box compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children

Head box compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children

Patient or population: children with severe acute LRTIs
Settings: children admitted to the paediatric ward
Intervention: head box
Comparison: nasopharyngeal catheter

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Nasopharyngeal catheter

Head box

Treatment failure
Failure to achieve adequate oxygenation (SaO2 greater than 60 mmHg)

Moderate

OR 0.40
(0.13 to 1.12)

80
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

107 per 1000

46 per 1000
(15 to 118)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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).
CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SaO2: arterial oxygen saturation

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Non‐randomised. Used sequential assignment methods.
2The 95% CI around the OR estimate is wide.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Head box compared to nasopharyngeal catheter for severe acute LRTIs in children
Table 1. Included studies that describe severe adverse events

Study

Adverse event

Oxygen delivery method

Frenckner 1990

Pneumocephalus in an 8‐month old girl with severe staphylococcal pneumonia

Nasopharyngeal catheter

Campos 1994

Pneumocephalus and right side severe exophthalmos in a 11‐month old boy with bacterial pneumonia and sinusitis

Nasopharyngeal catheter

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Included studies that describe severe adverse events
Table 2. Cyanosis: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Reuland 1991

3750 MASL

SpO2 < 82%

2 to 11 months

13

99

13

Reuland 1991

3750 MASL

SpO2 < 85%

> 11 months

13

99

13

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

3 to 11 months

9

96

2.3

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

1 month to 5 years

42

84

2.6

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

39

100

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 to 36 months

25

95

5.0

Duke 2002

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

1 month to 5 years

38

98

19.9

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

< 5 years

14

96

3.7

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 93%

1 month to 5 years

74

93

10.5

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

1 month to 5 years

70

75

2.8

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

2 month to 5 years

5

100

Kuti 2013

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

20

100

66.9

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Cyanosis: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 3. Grunting: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

3 to 11 months

64

73

2.4

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

12 to 36 months

56

76

2.3

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

7 days to 36 months

45

72

1.6

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

3 months to 5 years

42

89

3.8

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

48

61

1.2

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 to 36 months

46

86

3.3

Duke 2002

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

1 month to 5 years

22

87

1.6

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

< 5 years

14

93

1.9

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 93%

1 month to 5 years

82

72

3.0

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

1 month to 5 years

90

61

2.3

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

36

99

32.9

Kuti 2013

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

60

77

2.66

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Grunting: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 4. Nasal flaring: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

7 days to 36 months

63

65

1.8

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

3 months to 5 years

56

84

3.5

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

71

54

1.5

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 to 36 months

98

17

1.2

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 93%

1 month to 5 years

71

58

1.7

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

48

98

22.0

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Nasal flaring: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 5. Indrawing: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Type of indrawing

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Reuland 1991

3750 MASL

SpO2 < 82%

Any chest retractions

2 to 11 months

35

94

5.8

Reuland 1991

3750 MASL

SpO2 < 85%

Any chest retractions

> 11 months

35

94

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

Any retractions

3 to 11 months

97

29

1.4

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

Any retractions

> 11 months

88

30

1.3

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

Intercostal

7 days to 36 months

79

55

1.8

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

Subcostal

7 days to 36 months

76

43

1.3

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

Any chest retractions

7 days to 36 months

83

40

1.4

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

Indrawing

1 week to 5 years

98

7

1.1

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

Intercostal indrawing

2 months to 5 years

65

69

2.1

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

Lower chest indrawing

2 months to 5 years

74

37

1.2

Gutierrez 2001

43 MASL

SpO2 < 95%

Any chest retractions

1 month to 5 years

59

63

1.6

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

Intercostal indrawing

< 5 years

32

88

2.6

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

Lower chest indrawing

< 5 years

36

86

2.6

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

Chest indrawing

2 months to 5 years

69

83

4.0

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Indrawing: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 6. Mental status: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Definition

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

LR‐

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

Unresponsive

3 to 11 months

63

67

1.9

0.6

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

Unresponsive

> 11 months

56

78

2.5

0.6

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

Difficult to awake/abnormal sleepiness

7 days to 36 months

12

89

1.1

1.0

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

Decrease of consciousness/restlessness

3 months to 5 years

36

91

4.0

0.7

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 91%

Arousal

2 months to 5 years

70

78

3.2

0.4

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 91%

Irritability

2 months to 5 years

41

43

0.7

1.4

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 91%

Difficult to awake/abnormal sleepiness

2 months to 5 years

42

78

1.9

0.7

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

No spontaneous movement

2 to 36 months

46

84

2.9

0.6

Duke 2002

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

Reduced activity

1 month to 5 years

44

69

1.4

0.8

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 93%

Drowsy

1 month to 5 years

85

83

7.3

0.4

Laman 2005

35 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

Drowsy

1 month to 5 years

68

91

5.0

0.2

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

Lethargy

2 months to 5 years

40

100

0.6

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Mental status: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 7. Difficulty in feeding: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

3 to 11 months

50

75

2.0

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

> 12 months

40

71

1.4

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

7 days to 36 months

35

60

0.9

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

71

67

2.2

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 to 36 months

33

91

3.7

Duke 2002

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

1 month to 5 years

42

76

1.8

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

28

99

28

Kuti 2013

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

9

94

1.39

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Difficulty in feeding: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Table 8. Tachypnoea: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia (children < 12 months)

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Tachypnoea

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

> 60 r/min

3 to 11 months

86

56

2.0

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

> 70 r/min

3 to 11 months

51

83

3.0

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 50 r/min

0 to 11 months

76

71

2.6

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 60 r/min

0 to 11 months

40

86

2.9

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 70 r/min

0 to 11 months

16

100

Gutierrez 2001

43 MASL

SpO2 < 95%

> 50 r/min

2 to 11 months

64

56

1.5

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 50 r/min

4 to 12 months

89

24

1.2

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 60 r/min

4 to 12 months

82

52

1.7

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 70 r/min

4 to 12 months

54

78

2.5

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 50 r/min

2 to 12 months

90

44

1.6

MASL: metres above sea level
r/min: respirations per minute (respiratory rate)
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 8. Tachypnoea: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia (children < 12 months)
Table 9. Tachypnoea: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia (children 1 to 5 years)

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Tachypnoea

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

> 60 r/min

12 to 36 months

65

76

2.7

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

> 70 r/min

12 to 36 months

32

90

3.2

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 50 r/min

12 to 36 months

39

71

1.3

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 60 r/min

12 to 36 months

12

100

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

> 70 r/min

12 to 36 months

4

100

Gutierrez 2001

43 MASL

SpO2 < 95%

> 40 r/min

12 months to 5 years

64

56

1.4

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 40 r/min

12 months to 5 years

89

24

1.2

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 50 r/min

12 months to 5 years

82

52

1.7

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 60 r/min

12 months to 5 years

54

78

2.5

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

> 40 r/min

13 months to 5 years

100

43

1.8

MASL: metres above sea level
r/min: respirations per minute (respiratory rate)
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 9. Tachypnoea: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia (children 1 to 5 years)
Table 10. Crepitations: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia

Study

Altitude

Hypoxaemia

Age

Sensitivity

Specificity

LR+

LR‐

Reuland 1991

3750 MASL

SpO2 < 82%

2 to 11 months

50

92

6.3

0.5

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

3 to 11 months

77

40

1.3

0.6

Onyango 1993

1670 MASL

SpO2 < 91%

12 to 36 months

91

36

1.4

0.3

Lozano 1994

2640 MASL

SpO2 < 88%

7 days to 36 moths

79

53

1.7

0.4

Dyke 1995

1600 MASL

SpO2 < 86%

3 months to 5 years

90

16

1.1

0.6

Weber 1997

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

93

12

1.1

0.6

Usen 1999

Sea level

SpO2 < 90%

2 to 36 months

86

30

1.2

0.5

Lodha 2004

239 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

< 5 years

68

68

2.1

0.5

Basnet 2006

1336 MASL

SpO2 < 90%

2 months to 5 years

93

22

1.2

0.3

MASL: metres above sea level
SpO2: oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximeter

LR: likelihood ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 10. Crepitations: sensitivity and specificity for the presence of hypoxaemia
Comparison 1. Supplemental oxygen versus room air

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Incidence of subsequent hypoxaemia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2 Duration of tachypnoea Show forest plot

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.49 [‐16.30, 25.28]

2.1 Normoxaemic children

1

27

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.00 [‐18.02, 30.02]

2.2 Hypoxaemic children

1

31

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐41.48, 41.48]

3 Duration of chest indrawing Show forest plot

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.64 [‐10.77, 24.06]

3.1 Normoxaemic children

1

27

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.0 [‐13.65, 25.65]

3.2 Hypoxaemic children

1

31

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.0 [‐28.58, 46.58]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Supplemental oxygen versus room air
Comparison 2. Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Treatment failure to achieve adequate oxygenation Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Randomised clinical trials

2

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.36, 2.38]

1.2 Non‐randomised studies

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.44, 2.27]

2 Oxygen required in the first 24 hours (litres per minute (L/min)) Show forest plot

3

338

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.14, 0.29]

3 Nasal obstruction/severe mucus production Show forest plot

3

338

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.09, 0.44]

4 Nose ulceration or bleeding Show forest plot

3

338

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.18, 1.02]

5 Fighting/discomfort in the first 24 hours Show forest plot

2

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.46, 1.28]

6 Death during treatment Show forest plot

3

338

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.35, 1.15]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter