Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32870512›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Oxygen targets in the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a rapid review.

Andrew F Cumpstey, Alex H Oldman, Andrew F Smith, Daniel Martin, Michael Pw Grocott

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew F CumpsteyCritical Care Research Group, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Alex H OldmanAnaesthetics and Intensive Care, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Andrew F SmithDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK.
Daniel MartinPeninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Michael Pw GrocottIntegrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Lancaster Infirmary · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupplemental oxygen is frequently administered to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS secondary to viral illness such as coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). An up-to-date understanding of how best to target this therapy (e.g. arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO

objectivesTo address how oxygen therapy should be targeted in adults with ARDS (particularly ARDS secondary to COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses) and requiring mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit, and the impact oxygen therapy has on mortality, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, requirement for renal replacement therapy, and quality of life. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 May 2020 for ongoing or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed all records in accordance with standard Cochrane methodology for study selection. We included RCTs comparing supplemental oxygen administration (i.e. different target PaO DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author performed data extraction, which a second review author checked. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to judge the certainty of the evidence for the following outcomes; mortality at longest follow-up, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, and requirement for renal replacement therapy. MAIN

resultsWe identified one completed RCT evaluating oxygen targets in patients with ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. The study randomized 205 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS to either conservative (PaO AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe are very uncertain as to whether a higher or lower oxygen target is more beneficial in patients with ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. We identified only one RCT with a total of 205 participants exploring this question, and rated the risk of bias as high and the certainty of the findings as very low. Further well-conducted studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of the findings reported here. This review should be updated when more evidence is available.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialBiasCatecholaminesConservative TreatmentCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansOdds RatioOxygenPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRenal Replacement TherapyRespiratory Distress SyndromeSARS-CoV-2CatecholaminesOxygen

Identifiers

PMID32870512
PMCPMC8133396
OpenAlexW3082295849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.