SynthesisCritical care medicine2026
Conservative Oxygen Targets in Mechanically Ventilated Patients (OXY-BREATHES): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Critical care medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative (oxygen saturation [Sp o2 ] 88-94% or Pa o2 < 80 mm Hg) vs. liberal oxygen targets (Sp o2 ≥ 94% or Pa o2 ≥ 90 mm Hg) in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov . STUDY SELECTION: We conducted the OXY-BREATHES, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygen targets in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Primary outcomes were 90-day mortality and ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included ventilator- and vasopressor-free days, renal replacement therapy, nosocomial pneumonia, and cardiac or cerebral ischemic events. Subgroup analyses included patients with sepsis/septic shock and post-cardiac arrest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were collected according to study selection criteria. Certainty of evidence was appraised with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and risk of bias with the Cochrane tool. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs enrolling 20,447 patients were included. Conservative and liberal targets showed no substantial differences in 90-day (risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.09) or ICU length of stay (mean difference [MD], -0.17; 95% CI, -0.41 to 0.06). Secondary outcomes, including organ support-free days and the incidence of adverse events, were comparable between groups. In subgroup analyses, conservative targets yielded more vasopressor-free days in septic patients (MD, 2.0; p = 0.008) and a potential survival benefit in post-cardiac arrest patients (RR, 0.89; p = 0.05). Certainty of evidence was rated moderate for 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, and ventilator-free days; low for renal replacement therapy and nosocomial pneumonia; and very low for cerebral and cardiac ischemia due to imprecision and open-label trial designs.
conclusionsConservative oxygenation is comparable to liberal oxygen targets in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, with possible advantages in sepsis and post-cardiac arrest. Future condition-specific RCTs are warranted to define optimal ICU oxygen strategies.
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.