SynthesisBMJ open2021
Determining a safe upper limit of oxygen supplementation for adult patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ventilation Targets for Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Early hyperoxia and 28-day mortality in patients on venoarterial ECMO support for refractory cardiogenic shock: a bicenter retrospective propensity score-weighted analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Time-varying intensity of oxygen exposure is associated with mortality in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Dangers of hyperoxia.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to describe the connection between the inspired oxygen fraction and pulmonary complications in adult patients, with the objective of determining a safe upper limit of oxygen supplementation.
methodsMEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched in August 2019 (updated July 2020) for studies fulfilling the following criteria: intubated adult patients (
resultsOut of 6120 records assessed for eligibility, 12 were included. Seven studies were conducted in the emergency setting, and five studies included patients undergoing elective surgery. Eight studies reported data on atelectasis, two on ARDS, four on pneumonia and two on duration of mechanical ventilation. There was a non-significant increased risk of atelectasis if an oxygen fraction of 0.8 or above was used, relative risk (RR): 1.37 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.96). One study showed an almost threefold higher risk of pneumonia in the high oxygen fraction group (RR: 2.83 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.56)). The two studies reporting ARDS and the two studies with data on mechanical ventilation showed no association with oxygen fraction. Four studies had a high risk of bias in one domain.
conclusionsIn this systematic review, we found inadequate evidence to identify a safe upper dosage of oxygen, but the identified studies suggest a benefit of keeping inspiratory oxygen fraction below 0.8 with regard to formation of atelectases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020154242.
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.