ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Liberal Versus Restrictive Oxygenation Targets in Acute Heart Failure-A Protocol for a Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- Liberal Versus Restrictive Oxygenation Targets in Acute Heart Failure-A Protocol for a Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSupplemental oxygen therapy has been used for more than a century and is a routine treatment for patients with cardiopulmonary symptoms, including those with acute heart failure (AHF). Despite oxygen being one of the first interventions initiated in the emergency setting, the optimal oxygen saturation target and treatment strategy in AHF remain unclear. Given the clinical uncertainty, we will perform a systematic review comparing liberal and restrictive oxygenation targets in acute heart failure. We hypothesize that restrictive oxygen strategies are associated with reduced mortality and fewer serious adverse events.
methodsWe have used the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols to develop this protocol. All randomized clinical trials assessing restrictive versus liberal oxygenation targets in AHF will be included in our analysis. We will systematically search all relevant major medical databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as clinical trial registries. We will assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Included trials will be assessed and classified as low risk of bias or high risk of bias. We will perform traditional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of all outcomes and evaluate the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. This review is registered in the Prospero database (CRD420251046982). DISCUSSION: In this protocol we have defined the methodology we will use in a systematic review with meta-analysis where we aim to provide reliable evidence regarding restrictive versus liberal oxygenation targets in AHF. We hope this review will aid clinicians in optimal oxygen treatment strategies in patients with AHF.
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.