Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Clinical trials comparing liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy strategies in patients requiring mechanical ventilation have shown contradictory results regarding the best strategy for improving mortality outcomes, length of stay, and ventilator-free days. To summarize the evidence regarding the effects of conservative oxygen therapy compared with liberal oxygen therapy in adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Methods This systematic review with meta-analysis included controlled and randomized clinical trials obtained from the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Lilacs/bvs, PEDro and ScienceDirect. The effect estimate for mortality was expressed as the relative risk ( RR ), whereas the other variables were expressed as the mean difference ( MD ). A meta-analysis of the data was conducted via Review Manager software version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration). Results Nineteen randomized clinical trials involving more than 10,000 patients were included. Liberal oxygen therapy did not significantly differ from conventional oxygen therapy in terms of mortality ( RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93–1.07, GRADE moderate), length of stay ( MD 0.18; 95% CI: - 2.69–3.05, GRADE very low) or ventilator-free days ( MD 0.25; 95% CI: -1.78–2.27, GRADE very low). Conclusion The findings of this review show no significant differences in clinical outcomes between liberal and conventional oxygen therapy in adult ICU patients. As the burden of proof rests on the intervention, the absence of evidence for the superiority of liberal oxygen therapy means its benefit cannot be assumed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".