SynthesisHeart failure reviews2020
Oxygen use in chronic heart failure to relieve breathlessness: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opioid Use for Dyspnoea in Advanced Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- TAVR in older adults with cardiogenic shock: current practice and future direction.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- Oxygen supplementation in ambulatory patients with heart failure: a randomized proof-of-concept study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Cardiac Function Improvement by Conventional Cardiology Drug Regimens Combined with Sacubitril/Valsartan Sodium in Heart Failure Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Descriptive Epidemiology of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in US Nursing Home Residents With Heart Failure.Current problems in cardiology · 2023Review
- Rationale for targeted self-management strategies for breathlessness in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To appraise published studies on the use of supplemental oxygen in chronic heart failure. Chronic breathlessness is a characterizing symptom of symptomatic heart failure resulting in substantial disability and healthcare utilization and is the primary reason for emergency room visits and hospitalizations. In spite of the variable evidence, oxygen therapy is commonly administered both acutely and chronically. Moreover, the role of oxygen therapy to relieve chronic breathlessness in heart failure is not well described, particularly in normoxemic or mild or intermittent hypoxemic states. In fact, several studies have shown the detrimental effects of oxygen therapy with normal oxygen saturation levels. A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. Four databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 2001 to January 2019 investigating the use of oxygen in heart failure. Duplicate articles were removed from the review. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining full-text articles were reviewed and hand-searched for additional references. The quality of the full-text articles was assessed using standardized critical appraisal instruments by the Joanna Briggs Institute. A total of 11 studies, including three intervention and eight non-interventions studies, were included in this review from 1072 non-duplicated records retrieved. Sample size ranged from 4 to 5862. In spite of common usage, this review suggests that there are scant data available to justify the use of oxygen in individuals with non-hypoxemic chronic heart failure and chronic breathlessness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.