Cited by 165Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CarePain Management and Opioid Use

Oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Uronis, H E, Currow, D C, McCrory, D C, Samsa, G P, Abernethy, A P·2008·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of palliative oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in cancer patients. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomised controlled trials, comparing oxygen and medical air in cancer patients not qualifying for home oxygen therapy. Abstracts were reviewed and studies were selected using Cochrane methodology. The included studies provided oxygen at rest or during a 6-min walk. The primary outcome was dyspnoea. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were used to combine scores. Five studies were identified; one was excluded from meta-analysis due to data presentation. Individual patient data were obtained from the authors of the three of the four remaining studies (one each from England, Australia, and the United States). A total of 134 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oxygen failed to improve dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic cancer patients (SMD=-0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to 0.04; P=0.16). Results were stable to a sensitivity analysis, excluding studies requiring the use of imputed quantities. In this small meta-analysis, oxygen did not provide symptomatic benefit for cancer patients with refractory dyspnoea, who would not normally qualify for home oxygen therapy. Further study of the use of oxygen in this population is warranted given its widespread use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604161

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Oxygen therapy does not improve breathlessness in patients with cancer, and its marginal benefit in COPD is of dubious clinical significance.

    “Oxygen therapy, although it reverses hypoxaemia, does not improve breathlessness in patients with cancer, and the marginal benefit seen in a meta-analysis of COPD patients is of dubious clinical significance.”

    From The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease (2017) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results (Treatment efficacy; page unavailable) report that oxygen did not improve dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic cancer patients who would not normally qualify for home oxygen therapy. That supports the cancer finding, but not its extension to all patients with cancer. The paper says a separate review addressed COPD; it does not establish that a marginal benefit in a COPD meta-analysis was of dubious clinical significance. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ripamonti C, Bruera E (1997) Dyspnoea: pathophysiology and assessment. J Pain Symptom Manage 13: 220–232 9136233
  2. Storey P, Knight CF (2003) UNIPAC Four: Management of Selected Non-Pain Symptoms in the Terminally Ill, Vol. 83 Glenview, IL: American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine 35568337

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uronis, H. E., Currow, D. C., McCrory, D. C., Samsa, G. P., & Abernethy, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Abernethy, A P
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2008-01
Volume
98
Issue
2
Pages
294-299
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2070591275
Cited by
165
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 18
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS000079)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
dyspnea, cancer, medical air, home oxygen therapy, symptom relief, 6-minute walk test
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Hypoxia, Dyspnea, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Oxygen, Oxygen Inhalation Therapy, Palliative Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review