Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

Thomas Lass Klitgaard; Olav Lilleholt Schjørring; Frederik Mølgaard Nielsen; Christian Sylvest Meyhoff; Marija Barbateskovic; Jørn Wetterslev; Anders Perner; Bodil Steen Rasmussen

doi:10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5

Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

Thomas Lass Klitgaard, Olav Lilleholt Schjørring, Frederik Mølgaard Nielsen, Christian Sylvest Meyhoff, Marija Barbateskovic, Jørn Wetterslev, Anders Perner, Bodil Steen Rasmussen

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Article number	72
Journal	Journal of Intensive Care
Volume	9
Issue number	1
Number of pages	5
ISSN	2052-0492
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5
Publication status	Published - 7 Dec 2021

Keywords

Critical care
Meta-analysis
Oxygen
Systematic review

Access to Document

10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5

Cite this

@article{fd245e8e5c614a818f268df7f1181a2c,

title = "Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy",

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.",

keywords = "Critical care, Meta-analysis, Oxygen, Systematic review",

author = "Klitgaard, {Thomas Lass} and Schj{\o}rring, {Olav Lilleholt} and Nielsen, {Frederik M{\o}lgaard} and Meyhoff, {Christian Sylvest} and Marija Barbateskovic and J{\o}rn Wetterslev and Anders Perner and Rasmussen, {Bodil Steen}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2021. The Author(s).",

year = "2021",

month = dec,

day = "7",

doi = "10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

journal = "Journal of Intensive Care",

issn = "2052-0492",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Letter the editor

T2 - serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

AU - Klitgaard, Thomas Lass

AU - Schjørring, Olav Lilleholt

AU - Nielsen, Frederik Mølgaard

AU - Meyhoff, Christian Sylvest

AU - Barbateskovic, Marija

AU - Wetterslev, Jørn

AU - Perner, Anders

AU - Rasmussen, Bodil Steen

PY - 2021/12/7

Y1 - 2021/12/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Critical care

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Oxygen

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120855626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5

DO - 10.1186/s40560-021-00573-5

M3 - Letter

C2 - 34876227

SN - 2052-0492

VL - 9

JO - Journal of Intensive Care

JF - Journal of Intensive Care

IS - 1

M1 - 72

ER -

Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this