Klitgaard Thomas Lass, Schjørring Olav Lilleholt, Nielsen Frederik Mølgaard, Meyhoff Christian Sylvest, Barbateskovic Marija, Wetterslev Jørn, Perner Anders, Rasmussen Bodil Steen
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
J Intensive Care. 2021 Dec 7;9(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5.
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.
在最近的一篇论文中，陈等人报告了一项关于危重症患者保守氧疗与传统氧疗的系统评价及荟萃分析的结果。我们赞赏作者对该问题的关注。然而，作者似乎错误引用了研究结果，未报告所有指定分析的结果，未识别所有相关试验，事后更改了纳入标准，并且在次要结局分析中似乎改变了效应方向。这些问题导致了关于危重症患者目标导向性氧疗效果的错误结论。
