ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Optimal oxygenation in the intensive care unit: what recent trials do-and do not-tell us.
Article in Acute and critical care, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxygen therapy is one of the most widely used interventions in critical care. Numerous observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated conservative versus liberal oxygenation strategies, yet their results remain inconsistent, a pattern commonly observed in large clinical trials across multiple fields. Recent advances in intensive care unit practices further complicate the interpretation of prior findings, highlighting the need for a clearer framework to interpret oxygenation targets. This narrative review summarizes major observational studies, RCTs, and meta-analyses evaluating oxygenation strategies in critically ill patients. We examine variation in study designs, target and achieved oxygenation levels, and evolving critical care practices. Physiological principles, including oxygen delivery, oxygen utilization, and the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve, are applied to interpret current evidence and define clinically meaningful safety margins, while acknowledging the limitations of interpreting heterogeneous trial and meta-analytic results. Recent RCTs have found relatively small differences in oxygenation between study groups; both conservative and liberal oxygenation targets are generally within a safe physiological range. However, evidence from the LOCO2 trial indicates excessively low targets may be harmful, suggesting a safer lower limit of approximately peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) 92%-93%. Retrospective studies indicate acceptable outcomes with arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) values up to approximately 120 mm Hg. Because the upper portion of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve is flat, SpO2 cannot reliably detect hyperoxemia. Rather than determining the superiority of conservative or liberal oxygenation strategies, current evidence supports defining a practical therapeutic window. For most critically ill patients, an SpO2 range of 92-97% likely represents a safe and clinically meaningful target.
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.