ArticleCureus2019
Impact of Conservative Versus Conventional Oxygenation on Outcomes of Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy for intensive care unit patients: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Structural causal model with expert augmented knowledge to estimate the effect of oxygen therapy on mortality in the ICU.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2023Article
- Conservative oxygen therapy for critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of intensive care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is mixed evidence in the superiority of conservative versus conventional approach to oxygen therapy among patients admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of this study was to determine if conservative versus conventional oxygenation results in a statistically significant difference in outcomes in ICU patients.
methodsA systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of Level I-IV investigations of conservative versus conventional oxygenation among ICU patients. ICU mortality, 28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU length-of-stay, hospital length-of-stay, rate of new infections, and rate of new non-respiratory organ failure were compared using two-sample Z-tests using p-value less than 0.05.
resultsThree thousand four hundred thirty-three articles were screened. Four articles were included in the analysis. Three hundred seventy-two patients under the conservative oxygenation arm (Minimum target SpO2: 88-94%) and 370 patients under the conventional oxygenation arm (Minimum target SpO2: 96-97%) were analyzed. ICU mortality (16.7 ± 9.5% vs. 22.7 ± 6.0%; P<0.01), 28-day mortality (34.6 ± 26.4% vs. 41.6 ± 14.6%; P=0.02), and in-hospital mortality (30.2 ± 22.5% vs. 37.7 ± 14.2%; P<0.01) were all significantly lower in the conservative oxygenation arm versus the conventional oxygenation arm, respectively. Rate of new non-respiratory organ failure was also significantly lower in the conservative oxygenation arm (20.0 ± 8.5% vs. 29.7 ± 11.7%; P<0.01).
conclusionThe authors conclude that conservative oxygenation therapy could result in significantly lower rates of ICU mortality, 28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and new-onset non-respiratory organ failure. Further randomized controlled studies that show clinical outcome improvement in multiple parameters may be worthwhile to assess the true efficacy of this practice.
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.