Skip to main content

Automated oxygen control versus manual titration in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal
Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association (Q1)
Published
30 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Mohammad Amouri, Salahaldeen Deeb, Nouraldeen Deeb, Ayshe M Zoabi, Alhareth M Amro, Ahmed Rayyan, et al.
PMID
42533062
DOI
10.1038/s41372-026-02842-3

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether closed-loop automated fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) control improves oxygen targeting and clinical outcomes compared with clinician-directed manual titration in preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials searched through Feb 6, 2026. Crossover and parallel-group trials informed physiological outcomes; only longitudinal parallel-group trials informed clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1777 infants) were included. Automated control increased time within target range (mean difference 15.01 percentage points, 95% CI 10.90 to 19.13) and reduced time above target, below target, SpO2 < 80%, SpO2 > 98%, and manual FiO2 adjustments. Clinical outcomes remained uncertain: bronchopulmonary dysplasia risk ratio 0.80, death 1.03, necrotizing enterocolitis 0.81, and treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity 0.90. CONCLUSION: Automated FiO2 control consistently improves oxygen targeting, but current randomized evidence does not show clear benefit for major neonatal outcomes.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.