Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Perioperative oxygen therapy in patients undergoing surgical procedures: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses›Results: mapping and risk of bias assessment

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Perioperative oxygen therapy in patients undergoing surgical procedures: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses · Results: mapping and risk of bias assessment

Results: mapping and risk of bias assessment

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 10 min read

Material in this chapter has been reproduced with permission from Elfeky et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text.

Search results

The sensitive search of eight electronic databases and other sources in September 2021 retrieved 5892 references. In total, 4072 titles and abstracts were screened after deduplication. Of these, 3784 were excluded for reasons including duplicates, studies that were not systematic reviews of RCTs, studies where the target group was not surgical patients and studies where the intervention of interest was not perioperative oxygen therapy (see Appendix 7).

The remaining 288 articles were obtained for full-text screening. Of these, a further 175 were excluded, for reasons similar to those quoted above, and 59 reviews were selected for final inclusion. Thirteen additional RCTs were identified and were used to update the analyses in relevant anchoring reviews.

The PRIOR diagram describing each of these stages is presented in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 PRIOR flow diagram (in relation to PRIORs). Reproduced with permission from Elfeky et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The figure includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Mapping of included reviews

We included 59 reviews in this systematic overview: 29 reviews compared high versus low FiO2;53,67–74, 133–152 13 reviews compared HFNO versus COT62,75,76,94–96,153–158 and 17 reviews compared NIV versus COT.63,65,66,91,159–171 Of the 29 reviews comparing high versus low FiO2, 16 used an FiO2 of 80% oxygen in the group with a high FiO2 during anaesthesia; 5 used more than 80% oxygen; 3 used more than 60% oxygen and 1 used 60–90% oxygen.

Considerable overlapping between the primary studies included in the systematic reviews was observed (see Appendix 2, Tables 15–17).

All the included reviews examined the effectiveness of different oxygenation strategies in the adult population. No systematic reviews have attempted to synthesise the evidence in the paediatric population.

No systematic reviews in this overview assessed the effectiveness of oxygenation strategies at the preoperative stage. At the intraoperative stage, no evidence was identified on the effectiveness of NIV or HFNO compared with COT. Likewise, no evidence was identified on the effectiveness of postoperative administration of high FiO2 on patient outcomes compared with low FiO2.

We selected five anchoring reviews62,72,133,134,171 which provided comprehensive up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness of perioperative oxygen therapy.

Three anchoring reviews assessed the effectiveness of high (80%) versus low (30–35%) FiO2 in patients undergoing surgery.72,133,134 de Jonge et al. performed a systematic review of RCTs comparing the effect of 80% versus 30–35% FiO2 on the incidence of SSI.72 Lim et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high FiO2 compared with low FiO2 has more deleterious postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing non-thoracic surgery under general anaesthesia.133 Markwei et al. assessed the effect of 80% versus 30% oxygen concentration on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV).134

Two anchoring reviews examined the effectiveness of postoperative non-invasive respiratory support. Chaudhuri et al. assessed the effect of HFNO in the immediate postoperative period compared to COT.62 Hui et al. assessed the effectiveness of routine postoperative non-invasive respiratory support after elective surgery.171

Table 3 outlines the characteristics of chosen anchoring reviews.

TABLE 3 Characteristics of anchoring reviews
Review IDIncluded RCTs (participants), nCare stagePatient population (age group)Intervention/comparatorRelevant outcomesSummary of findingsReasons for being selected as anchoring review
de Jonge et al. 20197221 RCTs (17 RCTs in final analysis, 7817 participants)Intra- and postoperativePatients undergoing surgical procedures (adults)FiO2: high (80%), low (30–35%) SSI There was no evidence that high FiO2 reduces SSI (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07). There was a beneficial effect of high FiO2 in intubated patients (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99) but not in non-intubated patients (RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; test of interaction; p = 0.048).Most comprehensive review on the effects of high vs. low FiO2 on SSI
Lim et al. 202113326 RCTs (4991 patients)Intra- and postoperativePatients undergoing non-thoracic surgery (adults)FiO2: high (80–100%), low (30–40%)Primary outcome: mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes: atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, PPCs, ICU admissions, and length of hospital stayMortality in the high FiO2 group did not differ from that in the low FiO2 group (RR 0.91, 95%, CI 0.42 to 1.97), nor were there any significant differences between the groups in such outcomes as pneumonia, respiratory failure, PPCs, ICU admission and length of hospital stay. High FiO2 was associated with postoperative atelectasis more often (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.62). In subgroup analysis of BMI > 30 kg/m2, these parameters were similarly affected between the groupsMost up-to-date review on the effect of high FiO2 on mortality and pulmonary outcomes in non-thoracic surgery
Chaudhuri et al. 20206211 RCTs (2201 patients)PostoperativePatients undergoing surgical procedures (adults)HFNO/COT or NIVReintubation, escalation of respiratory support, mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, postoperative hypoxemia, and treatment complicationsHFNO use in the postoperative period was associated with a lower reintubation rate (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.88; moderate certainty) and decreased escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94; very low certainty). Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested that this effect was driven by patients who were obese and/or at high risk (subgroup differences, p = 0.06). No differences were found in any of the other stated outcomes between HFNO and COTMost comprehensive review on the effect of HFNO in the immediate postoperative period
Hui et al. 202217138 RCTS (9782 patients)PostoperativeAdult patients undergoing major elective surgeryNon-invasive respiratory support, including CPAP, NIV, and HFNO/standard postoperative careThe primary outcome was pneumonia, and the secondary outcome was PPCsNo difference was found in pneumonia (RD −0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.00) and PPCs (RD −0.11, −0.23 to 0.01) in patients receiving non-invasive respiratory support compared with standard care. Subgroup analyses did not identify a benefit of CPAP, NIV or HFNO in preventing pneumoniaThe largest and most comprehensive evidence synthesis to date of whether preventive postoperative non-invasive respiratory support, including CPAP, NIV, and HFNO, can reduce the incidence of pneumonia after elective surgery
Markwei et al. 202213415 trials with a total of 7170 patients. 10 trials were included in meta-analysis (6773 patients)IntraoperativeAdult patients undergoing surgery80% vs. 30% FiO2The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomitingThe meta-analysis of 10 trials did not find a difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.08)Most comprehensive review on the effect of 80% vs. 30% oxygen concentration on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting

Appendix 3, Table 18 highlights the characteristics of non-anchoring reviews. Characteristics of additional RCTs identified from the updated search are provided in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Characteristics of new RCTs
StudyCountryPatients randomised (n)Type of surgeryCare stageIntervention vs. controlRelevant outcomes
Alvandipour et al. 2019172Iran 85Colorectal surgeryIntraoperative +2 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 30%SSI, atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, length of hospital stay
Ferrando et al. 2020173Spain740Abdominal surgeryIntraoperative +3 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 30%Mortality within 30 days, mortality within 180 days, SSI, pulmonary complications
Holse et al. 2022174Denmark600Major non-cardiac surgeryIntraoperative +2 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 30%SSI, pneumonia, respiratory failure, mortality
Lin et al. 2021175China652Laparoscopic gastric and colorectal malignancies surgeryIntraoperativeFiO2 80% vs. 40%SSI, pneumonia, atelectasis
Mayank et al. 2019176India 94Colorectal surgeryIntraoperative +6 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 33% SSI
Reiterer et al. 2021177Austria260Major abdominal surgeryIntraoperative +2 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 30%Mortality, unplanned ICU admission, respiratory failure
Yerra 2021178India178Abdominal surgeryIntraoperative +2 hours postoperativelyFiO2 80% vs. 30%SSI, postoperative nausea and vomiting, respiratory complications
Ferrando et al. 2019179Spain 64Laparoscopic bariatric surgeryFirst 3 hours postoperativelyHFNO at 60 l/minute vs. Venturi mask 15l/minuteAtelectasis, hypoxaemia, pneumonia, ARDS, respiratory failure, length of hospital stay
Pibul et al. 2021180Thailand 67Cardiac surgery with midline sternotomyFirst 24 hours postoperativelyHFNO 20–60 l/minute vs. face mask/nasal cannulaReintubation rate, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay
Theologou et al. 2021181Greece 99Cardiac surgeryFirst 48 hours postoperativelyHFNO 60 or 40 l/minute vs. venturi maskReintubation, mortality, escalation of respiratory support
Twose et al. 2019182UK 20Major head and neck surgeryPostoperatively at the point when mechanical ventilation stoppedHFNO of 60 l/minute vs. standard O2Pneumonia, ARDS, length of hospital stay, ICU length of stay
Vourc’h et al. 2020183France 98Cardiac surgeryFirst 48 hours postoperativelyHFNO 45 L/minute vs. high-flow face mask 15 l/minuteReintubation, escalation of respiratory support, ICU length of stay

Methodological quality of included reviews

We assessed the risk of bias in included reviews with the ROBIS tool. The ROBIS assessment is organised in three phases:

  1. Phase 1: assessment of relevance
  2. Phase 2: identification of concerns within the review process. It is split into four domains: study eligibility criteria, study selection, data collection and appraisal of included studies, synthesis and findings
  3. Phase 3: overall risk of bias in the interpretation of findings and whether any limitations identified in phase 2 were considered by study authors

Questions included in phase 3 of the assessment are related to how the original review authors presented and interpreted their findings. As we updated the meta-analyses of the anchoring reviews and made our own interpretation of the updated findings, we focused on and presented findings related to risk of bias concerns identified in phase 2 of the assessment.

All reviews achieved a low risk of bias rating for specification of study eligibility criteria. Three reviews were judged to be at low risk of bias for the identification and selection of studies;72,133,171 one review was rated as unclear134 and one was at high risk.62 All reviews achieved a low risk of bias rating for domain 3 which assessed concerns regarding methods used to collect data and appraise studies. All reviews were judged to be at low risk of bias in domain 4, regarding the synthesis and findings.

Figure 3 presents the results of the phase 2 ROBIS rating according to the four different domains.

FIGURE 3 ROBIS assessment for included anchoring reviews. Reproduced with permission from Elfeky et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The figure includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Risk of bias in newly identified randomised controlled trials

Six of the 13 newly identified RCTs were considered at low risk of bias for all risk of bias domains.172–174,177,180,184 Five RCTs had some cause for concern.175,179,181–183 Two trials reporting on SSI were considered at high risk of bias.176,178 The domain most frequently assessed at high risk or of some concern of bias was deviations from the intended interventions.

Risk of bias judgements for important outcomes across comparisons are presented in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4 Risk of bias assessment for additional RCTs. Reproduced with permission from Elfeky et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The figure includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Risk of bias reassessment

The anchoring review (de Jonge et al. 2019) assessed risk of bias in included RCTs using the original Cochrane risk of bias tool. Therefore, the risk of bias for included RCTs was reassessed for the relevant outcome (SSI) using the revised ROB2 tool. Details of RoB2 ratings are provided in Appendix 4, Figure 40.

← Review methodsResults: clinical effectiveness →

Attribution. Adel Elfeky; Yen-Fu Chen; Amy Grove; Keith Couper; Rachel Court; Sara Tomassini et al. (2025). Perioperative oxygen therapy in patients undergoing surgical procedures: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2025 Elfeky et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK618082. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • Results: mapping and risk of bias assessment

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support