SynthesisAmerican journal of therapeutics
Oxygen Targets After Cardiac Arrest: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in American journal of therapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuroprognostication After Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: ECMO-Specific Challenges and a Multimodal Time-Sensitive Framework.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal oxygen saturation target in patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest is unknown. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing restrictive oxygen therapy with liberal therapy have shown conflicting results. STUDY QUESTION: We performed a meta-analysis of available RCTs to consolidate the contrasting findings regarding the oxygen targets after cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases for RCTs comparing restrictive versus liberal oxygen targets in patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. STUDY
designEnd points of interest were mortality, unfavorable neurological outcomes, and rearrests. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsEight RCTs with 1641 patients (restrictive n = 833, liberal n = 808) were included in the analysis. The oxygen targets were defined by either saturation, partial pressure (PaO2), or supplementation rates. The mean age and male percentage were 63 years and 80%, respectively. There was no significant difference observed in the 2 groups for overall mortality (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.75-1.10, P = 0.33), unfavorable neurological outcomes (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.74-1.18, P = 0.56), and rearrests (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.22-1.98, P = 0.47).
conclusionsOverall, this meta-analysis shows no significant difference in mortality, unfavorable neurological outcomes, and rearrests when using restrictive or liberal oxygen targets in patients after cardiac arrest. The limitations in the newer trials should be kept in mind while interpreting the overall results.
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.