Effects of Conservative Versus Liberal Oxygen Therapy on the Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianxiao Chen ◽  
Xiwen Zhang ◽  
Shi Zhang ◽  
Ling Liu ◽  
Yi Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Use of a helmet for oxygen therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 030006052090320
Author(s):  
Tao Wang ◽  
Hongzhen Yin ◽  
Qiancheng Xu ◽  
Xiaogan Jiang ◽  
Tao Yu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Lass Klitgaard ◽  
Olav Lilleholt Schjørring ◽  
Frederik Mølgaard Nielsen ◽  
Christian Sylvest Meyhoff ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Post Hoc

AbstractIn a recent paper, Chen et al. report the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis concerning conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy for critically ill patients. We wish to commend the authors for their interest in the matter. However, the authors appear to misquote findings, fail to report results for all specified analyses, do not identify all relevant trials, have post hoc changed the eligibility criteria, and have seemingly switched directions of effects in analyses of secondary outcomes. These issues have led to incorrect conclusions concerning the effects of targeted oxygen therapy in critically ill patients.

scholarly journals Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

scholarly journals Delirium screening in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Critical Care ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Serpa Neto ◽  
AP Nassar Júnior ◽  
SO Cardoso ◽  
JA Manetta ◽  
VG Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document