A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.</p

Oxygen supplementation for critically ill patients - A protocol for a systematic review

Background: In critically ill patients, hypoxaemia is a common clinical manifestation of inadequate gas exchange in the lungs. Supplemental oxygen is therefore given to all critically ill patients. This can result in hyperoxaemia, and some observational studies have identified harms with hyperoxia. The objective of this systematic review is to critically assess the evidence of randomised clinical trials on the effects of higher versus lower inspiratory oxygen fractions or targets of arterial oxygenation in critically ill adult patients. Methods: We will search for randomised clinical trials in major international databases. Two authors will independently screen and select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included randomised clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will analyse the extracted data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. To assess the quality of the evidence, we will create a ‘Summary of Findings’ table containing our primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE assessment. Discussion: Supplemental oxygen administration is widely recommended in international guidelines despite lack of robust evidence of its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no systematic review of randomised clinical trials has investigated the effects of oxygen supplementation in critically ill patients. This systematic review will provide reliable evidence to better inform future trialists and decision-makers on clinical practice on supplemental oxygen administration in critically ill patients.</p

Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit

Background: This is an updated review concerning 'Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit'. Supplementary oxygen is provided to most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent global and organ hypoxia (inadequate oxygen levels). Oxygen has been administered liberally, resulting in high proportions of patients with hyperoxemia (exposure of tissues to abnormally high concentrations of oxygen). This has been associated with increased mortality and morbidity in some settings, but not in others. Thus far, only limited data have been available to inform clinical practice guidelines, and the optimum oxygenation target for ICU patients is uncertain. Because of the publication of new trial evidence, we have updated this review. Objectives: To update the assessment of benefits and harms of higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2) or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registers and scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials. Literature searches for this updated review were conducted in November 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2 or SaO2)) for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants to hypoxaemia (FiO2 below 0.21, SaO2/SpO2 below 80%, or PaO2 below 6 kPa) or to hyperbaric oxygen, and cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials. Data collection and analysis: Four review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references identified in the literature searches and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life. We analysed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. Only three trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more SAEs as a composite outcome. However, most trials reported on events categorised as SAEs according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single SAE with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with an SAE in each trial. Two trials reported on quality of life. Secondary outcomes were lung injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. No trial reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, but four trials reported on the occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and five on pneumonia. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single lung injury event with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial. We assessed the risk of systematic errors by evaluating the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We used the GRADEpro tool to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We also evaluated the risk of publication bias for outcomes reported by 10b or more trials. Main results: We included 19 RCTs (10,385 participants), of which 17 reported relevant outcomes for this review (10,248 participants). For all-cause mortality, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and six at overall high risk of bias. For the reported SAEs, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and seven at overall high risk of bias. Two trials reported on quality of life, of which one was judged to be at overall low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias for this outcome. Meta-analysis of all trials, regardless of risk of bias, indicated no significant difference from higher or lower oxygenation strategies at maximum follow-up with regard to mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (C)I 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 14%; 16 trials; 9408 participants; very low-certainty evidence); occurrence of SAEs: the highest proportion of any specific SAE in each trial RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 36%; 9466 participants; 17 trials; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.5 points in participants assigned to higher oxygenation strategies (95% CI -2.75 to 1.75; I2 = 34%, 1649 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence)). Meta-analysis of the cumulated number of SAEs suggested benefit of a lower oxygenation strategy (RR 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; I2 = 74%; 9489 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty evidence)). However, trial sequential analyses, with correction for sparse data and repetitive testing, could reject a relative risk increase or reduction of 10% for mortality and the highest proportion of SAEs, and 20% for both the cumulated number of SAEs and quality of life. Given the very low-certainty of evidence, it is necessary to interpret these findings with caution. Meta-analysis of all trials indicated no statistically significant evidence of a difference between higher or lower oxygenation strategies on the occurrence of lung injuries at maximum follow-up (the highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 2048 participants; 8 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of all trials indicated harm from higher oxygenation strategies as compared with lower on the occurrence of sepsis at maximum follow-up (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93; I2 = 0%; 752 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated no differences regarding the occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. Authors' conclusions: In adult ICU patients, it is still not possible to draw clear conclusions about the effects of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies on all-cause mortality, SAEs, quality of life, lung injuries, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis at maximum follow-up. This is due to low or very low-certainty evidence.</p

Higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND: The mainstay treatment for hypoxaemia is oxygen therapy, which is given to the vast majority of adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The practice of oxygen administration has been liberal, which may result in hyperoxaemia. Some studies have indicated an association between hyperoxaemia and mortality, whilst other studies have not. The ideal target for supplemental oxygen for adults admitted to the ICU is uncertain. Despite a lack of robust evidence of effectiveness, oxygen administration is widely recommended in international clinical practice guidelines. The potential benefit of supplemental oxygen must be weighed against the potentially harmful effects of hyperoxaemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers. We also scanned the reference lists of included studies. We ran the searches in December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. We included trials with a difference between the intervention and control groups of a minimum 1 kPa in partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2), minimum 10% in fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or minimum 2% in arterial oxygen saturation of haemoglobin/non-invasive peripheral oxygen saturation (SaO2/SpO2). We excluded trials randomizing participants to hypoxaemia (FiO2 below 0.21, SaO2/SpO2 below 80%, and PaO2 below 6 kPa) and to hyperbaric oxygen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references retrieved in the literature searches and extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and quality of life. None of the trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. Nonetheless, most trials reported several serious adverse events. We therefore included an analysis of the effect of higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen, or targets using the highest reported proportion of participants with a serious adverse event in each trial. Our secondary outcomes were lung injury, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. None of the trials reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, however some trials reported on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pneumonia. We included an analysis of the effect of higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets using the highest reported proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial. To assess the risk of systematic errors, we evaluated the risk of bias of the included trials. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (1458 participants), seven of which reported relevant outcomes for this review (1285 participants). All included trials had an overall high risk of bias, whilst two trials had a low risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. Meta-analysis indicated harm from higher fraction of inspired oxygen or targets as compared with lower fraction or targets of arterial oxygenation regarding mortality at the time point closest to three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 4 trials; 1135 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated harm from higher fraction of inspired oxygen or targets as compared with lower fraction or targets of arterial oxygenation regarding serious adverse events at the time point closest to three months (estimated highest proportion of specific serious adverse events in each trial RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23; I2 = 0%; 1234 participants; 6 trials; very low-certainty evidence). These findings should be interpreted with caution given that they are based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the included trials reported any data on quality of life at any time point. Meta-analysis indicated no evidence of a difference between higher fraction of inspired oxygen or targets as compared with lower fraction or targets of arterial oxygenation on lung injury at the time point closest to three months (estimated highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 1167 participants; 5 trials; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials reported any data on acute myocardial infarction or stroke, and only one trial reported data on the effects on sepsis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and lung injuries at the time point closest to three months due to very low-certainty evidence. Our results indicate that oxygen supplementation with higher versus lower fractions or oxygenation targets may increase mortality. None of the trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events according to the ICH-GCP criteria, however we found that the trials reported an increase in the number of serious adverse events with higher fractions or oxygenation targets. The effects on quality of life, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis are unknown due to insufficient data.</p