SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy for mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, clinicians lack sufficient evidence to determine which oxygen therapy approach yields better outcomes in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients, whether conservative oxygen therapy (COT) or liberal oxygen therapy (LOT). Methods: This study systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of each database to 1 September 2025. The outcome measures in MV patients included overall mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and MV hours. Results: This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs published between 2014 and 2025, involving a total of 20,786 adult MV patients. There was no significant difference in overall mortality between the COT and LOT groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10; Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of MV patients, COT was not associated with a reduction in overall mortality, ICU mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and MV hours when compared with LOT. The absence of overall benefit from COT in this broad population does not preclude the possibility that selected subgroups or different target ranges could prove advantageous. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251137389.
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.