Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38296345›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2024

Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce.

Zainab Ahmadi, Joar Björk, Hans Gilljam, Madhuri Gogineni, Torbjörn Gustafsson, Michael Runold, Thomas Ringbæk, Josefin Wahlberg, Lotta Wendel, Magnus Ekström

Open access · diamondAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Zainab AhmadiDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden zai.ahmd@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1434-5715
Joar BjörkCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hans GilljamDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Madhuri GogineniStockholms Sjukhem, Palliative Home Care and Hospice Wards, Stockholm, Sweden.
Torbjörn GustafssonDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, University Hospital of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden.
Michael RunoldDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thomas RingbækAllergy and Lung Clinic, Elsinore, Denmark.
Josefin WahlbergDepartment of Medicine, Blekinge Hospital, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Lotta WendelFaculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Magnus EkströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7227-5113
Lund University · SEDanish Lung Association · DKKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SEMalmö University · SEUniversity Hospital of Umeå · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.

methodsThe taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population-intervention-comparator-outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.

resultsGeneral questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.

conclusionsMultiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.

Indexed as

OxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyHumansRisk AssessmentSmokingSwedenOxygen

Identifiers

PMID38296345
PMCPMC10828833
OpenAlexW4391401477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.