Higher vs lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation: Proportion of participants with 1 or more serious adverse events according to International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH‐GCP)
It is very uncertain whether higher changes proportion of participants with ≥ 1 serious adverse events according… compared with lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Higher vs lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation Proportion of participants with ≥ 1 serious adverse events according to International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice: range 3 d to 180 d · adults admitted to the ICU It is very uncertain whether higher changes proportion of participants with ≥ 1 serious adverse events according… compared with lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (very low certainty). Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to… (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.01 [0.96, 1.06] | 17 studies · 9466 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.