Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526060›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2021

Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy for ventilated patients in the ICU: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lu Liu, Yali Tian

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Lu LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yali TianWest China School of Nursing, Sichuan University/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. hxyyhlbtyl@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9874-2253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe acknowledgment that conservative oxygen therapy (COT) was related to better prognosis in the intensive care unit (ICU) was challenged recently. We conducted an updated meta-analysis aimed to determine whether liberal oxygen therapy (LOT) or COT is associated with better improve clinical outcomes.

methodsWe systematically searched the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) up to May 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the mortality of the final follow-up time and secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, the ICU length of stay and the number of ventilator-free days.

resultsA total of 7 RCTs were included, with 2166 patients admitted to the ICU. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the LOT and COT. Additionally, LOT could not significantly increase ICU mortality and the ICU length of stay compared with COT.

conclusionsThe present study showed that COT was not significantly superior to LOT in clinical outcomes. Therefore, additional high-quality studies with novel designs are required to further elucidate this controversy.

Indexed as

OxygenRespiration, ArtificialHumansIntensive Care UnitsOxygen Inhalation TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicOxygenICUMeta-analysisOxygen saturation

Identifiers

PMID34526060
PMCPMC8441241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.