Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35154365›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2021

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Daniel S Martin, Margaret McNeil, Chris Brew-Graves, Helder Filipe, Ronan O'Driscoll, Jia Liu Stevens, Rachel Burnish, Andrew F Cumpstey, Norman R Williams, Michael G Mythen and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

11 authors.

Daniel S MartinIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6220-8235
Margaret McNeilIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK.
Chris Brew-GravesDivision of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Helder FilipeIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK.
Ronan O'DriscollRespiratory Medicine, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Jia Liu StevensIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3888-3166
Rachel BurnishAcute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Andrew F CumpsteyAcute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Norman R WilliamsDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6496-312X
Michael G MythenUniversity College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Michael Pw GrocottAcute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite oxygen being the commonest drug administered to critically ill patients we do not know which oxygen saturation (SpO

methodsWe set out to recruit 60 participants across two sites into a trial in which they were randomised to receive conservative oxygenation (SpO

resultsA total of 34 patients were recruited into the study until it was stopped due to time constraints. A number of key barriers to success were identified during the course of the study. The conservative oxygenation intervention was feasible and appeared to be safe in this small patient cohort and it achieved wide separation of the median time-weighted average (IQR) SpO

conclusionWhilst conservative oxygenation was a feasible and safe intervention which achieved clear group separation in oxygenation levels, the model used in this trial will require alterations to improve future participant recruitment rates in the UK.

Indexed as

critical illnesshypoxaemiaintensive caremechanical ventilationOxygen

Identifiers

PMID35154365
PMCPMC8829765

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.