FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4253259971> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4253259971 endingPage "1054" @default.
• W4253259971 startingPage "1053" @default.
• W4253259971 abstract "We would like to thank Drs. Hedenstierna, Belda, Meyhoff and colleagues for their interest in our meta-analysis.1 We attempted to provide a comprehensive quantitative summary on the effects of perioperative high inspired oxygen fraction—definitely an on-going and passionate issue.The main concern of Drs. Hedenstierna and Edmark is that we considered studies in which nitrous oxide was used as carrier gas, and that the variation in nitrous oxide concentrations among study groups may not have been properly controlled in all trials. Whether studies using nitrous oxide should be considered is, indeed, a relevant question in situations where nitrous oxide has been recognized as a confounding factor. For that reason, we did not consider data on postoperative nausea and vomiting from studies that were using nitrous oxide (because nitrous oxide has emetogenic properties). However, there is no evidence suggesting that nitrous oxide plays any role in the incidence of surgical site infection.2 Nitrous oxide was administrated in one trial only that reported data on pulmonary outcome.3 In that trial, the incidence of atelectasis was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in the group receiving 70% of nitrous oxide (i.e., 30% Fio2 [fraction of inspired oxygen]), suggesting either a detrimental effect of nitrous oxide or a protective effect of high Fio2, or both. In any case, the result tends to support our conclusions. We cannot exclude that, in trials that were using nitrous oxide, some variability in the concentration of nitrous oxide may have led to different oxygen regimens in some patients. This, however, would most probably not have affected our conclusions. If some patients in “high Fio2” groups had actually received a “not so high Fio2,” and some patients in “normal Fio2” groups had received a “higher than normal Fio2,” this would have weakened the beneficial effects of high oxygen fraction. Thus, our conclusions could have indeed been too conservative and the true beneficial effects of high Fio2 would actually be even more pronounced. Drs. Hedenstierna and Edmark are also skeptical about our conclusions on postoperative atelectasis. We fully agree with their view that the occurrence of perioperative atelectasis is of multifactorial etiology. Yet, the question is not so much whether intraoperative atelectases occur in surgical patients, as there is general agreement that this happens, but whether or not intraoperative high oxygen regimens increase the risk of clinically relevant postoperative atelectasis. To date, there is no evidence from randomized controlled trials to suggest that this is the case.Dr. Belda and colleagues suggest an interesting method to better allow for potential sources of heterogeneity in meta-analyses. Although they agree that high Fio2 should be considered to reduce the risk of surgical site infection, and that this intervention may provide protection throughout a large range of surgeries, they argue that additional trials, with standardized outcome measures and including high-risk patients, will be needed to ensure adequate power and to guarantee wide applicability of these results. We agree that further large trials including patients at high risk of surgical site infection may be warranted. However, it should be highlighted that trials in patients who are not receiving prophylactic antibiotics are probably not ethically acceptable anymore. Thus, the challenge will be to confirm the anti-infective efficacy of high oxygen regimens in surgical patients who are receiving prophylactic antibiotics concomitantly and in whom the baseline risk of infection will be, accordingly, low.Finally, Dr. Meyhoff and colleagues nicely highlight strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses. We would like to reassure Dr. Meyhoff that we did not have, as they seem to suggest, any bias in favor, or against high inspired oxygen. One may, or may not, agree with our methodological choices, yet our process was overt; every step of the critical appraisal of included and excluded studies, as well as the rationale behind all quantitative analyses, were transparent, clearly described, and reproducible. Also, we have pointed out for the first time that almost all patients in these trials had received prophylactic antibiotics. This is a serious methodological issue that needs to be addressed when analyzing the anti-infective efficacy of high oxygen regimens and it is surprizing that this problem has not been pointed out in previous similar analyses. We are looking forward to the conclusions of the preannounced Cochrane review on the same subject, and we do hope that Dr Meyhoff and colleagues will take advantage of the methodological considerations depicted in our publication to further our understanding on the clinical relevance of high inspired oxygen fraction during surgery.The authors declare no competing interests." @default.
• W4253259971 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4253259971 creator A5035834626 @default.
• W4253259971 creator A5037705421 @default.
• W4253259971 creator A5056286765 @default.
• W4253259971 creator A5091579021 @default.
• W4253259971 date "2014-04-01" @default.
• W4253259971 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4253259971 title "In Reply" @default.
• W4253259971 cites W1971516364 @default.
• W4253259971 cites W2035118431 @default.
• W4253259971 cites W2141629026 @default.
• W4253259971 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000000158" @default.
• W4253259971 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24694854" @default.
• W4253259971 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W4253259971 type Work @default.
• W4253259971 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4253259971 countsByYear W42532599712014 @default.
• W4253259971 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4253259971 hasAuthorship W4253259971A5035834626 @default.
• W4253259971 hasAuthorship W4253259971A5037705421 @default.
• W4253259971 hasAuthorship W4253259971A5056286765 @default.
• W4253259971 hasAuthorship W4253259971A5091579021 @default.
• W4253259971 hasBestOaLocation W42532599711 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C2777573673 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C540031477 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConcept C77350462 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C126322002 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C178790620 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C185592680 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C2777573673 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C42219234 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C540031477 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C71924100 @default.
• W4253259971 hasConceptScore W4253259971C77350462 @default.
• W4253259971 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4253259971 hasLocation W42532599711 @default.
• W4253259971 hasLocation W42532599712 @default.
• W4253259971 hasOpenAccess W4253259971 @default.
• W4253259971 hasPrimaryLocation W42532599711 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W1497891532 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2007569056 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2074440122 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2082070755 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2152173364 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2315665134 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2549135832 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W4233923342 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W4252120902 @default.
• W4253259971 hasRelatedWork W2120393283 @default.
• W4253259971 hasVolume "120" @default.
• W4253259971 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4253259971 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4253259971 workType "article" @default.