Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: A methodologic appraisal of the evidence

Heyland, Daren K., Cook, Deborah J., King, Derek BMath, Kernerman, Philip, Brun-Buisson, Christian·1996·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systemically review the effect of interventions designed to achieve supraphysiologic values of cardiac index, oxygen delivery (DO2), and oxygen consumption (VO2) in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Computerized bibliographic search of published research, citation review of relevant articles, and contact with primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized clinical trials of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients that evaluated interventions (fluids, inotropes, and vasoactive drugs) designed to achieve supraphysiologic values of cardiac index, DO2, and/or VO2. Independent review of 64 articles identified seven relevant studies of 1,016 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted data on the population, interventions, outcomes, and methodologic quality of the studies by duplicate independent review. Agreement was high (weighed kappa 0.73); differences were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Targeting therapy to achieve supraphysiologic end points in critically ill patients is associated with a nonstatistically significant trend toward decreased mortality rates (relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence intervals 0.62 to 1.20). For the two studies in which supraphysiologic goals were initiated preoperatively, the relative risk was 0.20 (95% confidence intervals 0.07 to 0.55). This value differed significantly from the combined estimate of the remaining studies, in which the intervention was started after ICU admission (relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.22; p<.01). However, there are several methodologic problems with the primary studies. In no trials were caregivers or outcome assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Only three of seven trials analyzed patients according to the group to which they were allocated. None adequately controlled for cointerventions, and there was considerable crossover between groups (patients in the control group achieved the goals of the intervention group and vice versa). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to achieve supraphysiologic goals of cardiac index, DO2, and VO2 did not significantly reduce mortality rates in all critically ill patients. However, there may be a benefit in those patients in which the therapy is initiated preoperatively. Methodologic limitations weaken the inferences that can be drawn from these studies and preclude any evidence-based clinical recommendations.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/00003246-199603000-00025

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Heyland, D. K., Cook, D. J., King, D. B., Kernerman, P., & Brun-Buisson, C.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
1996-03
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
517-524
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038416720
Cited by
340
References
2
FWCI
27.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: A methodologic appraisal of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199603000-00025
The paper
Heyland, D. K., Cook, D. J., King, D. B., Kernerman, P., & Brun-Buisson, C. (1996). Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: A methodologic appraisal of the evidence. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199603000-00025

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.