Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37386595›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2023

Hyperoxia in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review.

Francesca Romana Catalanotto, Mariachiara Ippolito, Alice Mirasola, Giulia Catalisano, Marta Milazzo, Antonino Giarratano, Andrea Cortegiani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
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

7 authors.

Francesca Romana CatalanottoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Mariachiara IppolitoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Alice MirasolaDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Giulia CatalisanoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Marta MilazzoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Antonino GiarratanoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Andrea CortegianiDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S), University of Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy. andrea.cortegiani@unipa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-9993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn septic patients, hyperoxia may help with its bactericidal effects, but it may cause systemic impairments. The role of hyperoxia and the appropriate oxygen target in these patients is unknown. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available literature.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search screening PubMed and Cochrane Library. Studies on adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and admitted to ICU addressing the topic of hyperoxia were included and described.

resultsWe included 12 studies, for a total of 15.782 included patients. Five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or analyses from RCTs, three were prospective observational studies, and four were retrospective observational studies. The definition of hyperoxia was heterogeneous across the included studies. Mortality was the most frequent outcome: six studies showed an increased rate or risk of mortality with hyperoxia, three found no differences, and one a protective effect of hyperoxia. At the critical appraisal assessment stage, no major methodological flaws were detected, except for a single-center, pilot study, with a lack of adjustment for confounders and imbalance between the groups.

conclusionThe optimum range of oxygen level able to minimize risks and provide benefits in patients with sepsis or septic shock seems still unknown. Clinical equipoise between hyperoxia and normoxia is uncertain as conflicting evidence exists. Further studies should aim at identifying the best range of oxygenation and its optimal duration, investigating how effects of different levels of oxygen may vary according to identified pathogens, source of infection, and prescribed antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Indexed as

HyperoxiaICUOxygenSepsisSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID37386595
PMCPMC10245526

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.