AI Article Synopsis
- A recent study looked at two ways to give oxygen to very sick patients: one is careful and the other is more traditional.
- The authors of the study made some mistakes, like quoting things incorrectly, not showing all their results, and changing their rules during the study.
- Because of these problems, they reached wrong conclusions about how effective targeted oxygen therapy is for these patients.
Article Abstract
In 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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649324 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!