Automatic versus Manual Oxygen Titration in Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in the Hospital: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Closed-loop oxygen titration devices have been developed to avoid periods of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia, both detrimental to patients hospitalized for respiratory failure and requiring supplemental oxygen. However, their clinical impact remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of automatic versus manual oxygen titration on clinical outcomes in pediatric and adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen in the hospital. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL electronic databases (from inception to August 2018), and conference proceedings of major societies in respiratory medicine (2015-2018). Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared automatic to manual oxygen titration in hypoxemic inpatients and if they assessed at least one of the following: length of hospital stay (primary outcome), length of oxygen therapy, need and duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, percentage of time within, above, and below the oxygen saturation target range, as well as the percentage of time spent in hypoxemia and hyperoxemia. RESULTS: We included 9 trials (354 patients, adults and preterm infants, with or without ventilatory assistance). Eight of these trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and selective reporting. Automatic titration was associated with a significant decrease in the length of hospital stay (mean difference: -2.2 days; 95% CI: -3.8 to -0.6; p = 0.009; I2 = 0%; n = 237, 2 trials), and a decrease in the length of oxygen therapy (mean difference: -1.6 days; 95% CI: -3.1 to 0.0; p = 0.05; I2 = 0%; n = 237; 2 trials). We did not observe a reduction in the need for ventilatory assistance or in mortality in the automatic titration period. An increase in the percentage of time spent within target (mean difference: 18.23%; 95% CI: 10.93-25.52; I2 = 81%; n = 351, 7 trials) and a significant reduction in the percentage of time spent in both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia with automatic compared to manual oxygen titration were, however, observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring supplemental oxygen in the hospital, automatic oxygen titration was associated with a reduction in length of both hospital stay and oxygen therapy, as well as a greater percentage of time spent within the saturation target range. However, it was not associated with a significant difference in the need for mechanical ventilation or in mortality. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included trials and their high risk of bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".