Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35506014›Full record

ReviewCritical care explorations2022

Oxygen Targets During Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Andrew F Cumpstey, Alex H Oldman, Daniel S Martin, Andrew Smith, Michael P W Grocott

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Advances in Machine Learning for Mechanically Ventilated Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2025
    Review
  11. Septic shock in the prehospital setting: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew F CumpsteyPerioperative and Critical Care Theme, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton / University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Alex H OldmanIntegrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Daniel S MartinIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew SmithLancaster Patient Safety Research Unit, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal, United Kingdom.
Michael P W GrocottPerioperative and Critical Care Theme, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton / University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
University of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients admitted to intensive care often require treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation and high concentrations of oxygen. Mechanical ventilation can cause acute lung injury that may be exacerbated by oxygen therapy. Uncertainty remains about which oxygen therapy targets result in the best clinical outcomes for these patients. This review aims to determine whether higher or lower oxygenation targets are beneficial for mechanically ventilated adult patients. DATA SOURCES: Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, and Cochrane medical databases were searched from inception through to February 28, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing higher and lower oxygen targets in adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy in an intensive care setting. DATA EXTRACTION: Study setting, participant type, participant numbers, and intervention targets were captured. Outcome measures included "mortality at longest follow-up" (primary), mechanical ventilator duration and free days, vasopressor-free days, patients on renal replacement therapy, renal replacement free days, cost benefit, and quality of life scores. Evidence certainty and risk of bias were evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random-effects models was used. Post hoc subgroup analysis looked separately at studies comparing hypoxemia versus normoxemia and normoxemia versus hyperoxemia. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data from eight trials (4,415 participants) were analyzed. Comparing higher and lower oxygen targets, there was no difference in mortality (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.22), but heterogeneous and overlapping target ranges limit the validity and clinical relevance of this finding. Data from seven studies (

conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis identified possible increased mortality with liberal oxygen targeting strategies and no difference in morbidity between high or low oxygen targets in mechanically ventilated adults. Findings were limited by substantial heterogeneity in study methodology and further research is urgently required to define optimal oxygen therapy targets.

Indexed as

critical carehyperoxiamechanical ventilationoxygenoxygen therapy

Identifiers

PMID35506014
PMCPMC9049025
OpenAlexW4220777957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.