ArticleBMJ open2025
A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of production and requirements of medical oxygen during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMedical oxygen supplementation is essential for treating severe illnesses and plays a critical role in managing life-threatening conditions, especially during the period of increased demand, such as the delta wave of COVID-19. The study aims to evaluate oxygen requirements and production to support effective capacity planning for future health crises. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional quantitative study. Data collection was carried out between 15 March and 19 December 2021.
main outcome measuresThe study used secondary data from Nepal's Health Emergency Operation Centre. Regarding medical oxygen production, calculations included oxygen generated from both hospital-based oxygen plants and private companies, using their highest capacities for comparison. These production capacities were then assessed using three levels of efficiency (100%, 80% and 50%), revealing significant gaps when compared against the oxygen requirements of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, as guided by WHO recommendations. The results were communicated in terms of J-size cylinders, alongside average daily COVID-19 hospitalizations. Data was inputted and analysed using Microsoft Excel and presented in numbers and percentage.
resultsThe country's oxygen demand relies largely on the production from private enterprises, with meeting approximately 85.2% of the total requirement. Optimal production ensures that national oxygen needs will be met. The analysis highlighted that at 80% operational efficiency, 90.8% of the hospital's requirements could be fulfilled. However, if operational efficiency drops to 50%, the fulfilment rate diminishes to 56.7%. The differences in requirement and production of oxygen are consistent across the provinces; however, a huge disparity was notable in Karnali and Sudurpaschim.
conclusionContinuous assessment of production capacities in both hospital and private enterprises producing oxygen is necessary to plan and address the gaps.
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.