Summary of findings for the main comparison. Oxygen saturation targeting in preterm infants.
| Lower compared to higher targeted oxygen saturations (no subgroups) in preterm infants | ||||||
| Patient or population: extremely preterm infants Setting: neonatal intensive care units Intervention: lower oxygen saturation targets Comparison: higher oxygen saturations targets (no subgroups) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with higher targeted oxygen saturations (no subgroups) | Risk with lower targeted oxygen saturations | |||||
| Death or major disability by 18 to 24 months corrected age (aligned definition) | Study population | RR 1.04 (0.98 to 1.10) | 4754 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | — | |
| 493 per 1000 | 513 per 1000 (483 to 542) | |||||
| Death to 18 to 24 months corrected age | Study population | RR 1.16 (1.03 to 1.31) | 4873 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | — | |
| 171 per 1000 | 199 per 1000 (176 to 224) | |||||
| Major disability by 18 to 24 months corrected age (aligned definition) | Study population | RR 1.01 (0.93 to 1.09) | 3867 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | — | |
| 383 per 1000 | 387 per 1000 (356 to 417) | |||||
| Retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment | Study population | RR 0.72 (0.61 to 0.85) | 4089 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 1 | — | |
| 148 per 1000 | 106 per 1000 (90 to 125) | |||||
| Necrotising enterocolitis | Study population | RR 1.24 (1.05 to 1.47) | 4929 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | — | |
| 90 per 1000 | 112 per 1000 (95 to 133) | |||||
| Blindness | Study population | RR 1.13 (0.65 to 1.97) | 3875 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 2 | — | |
| 12 per 1000 | 13 per 1000 (8 to 23) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval;RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1Downgraded to moderate for inconsistency due to moderate heterogeneity (I² = 72%).
2Downgraded to moderate for imprecision due to low event rates.