Log in with your email address username.

×

Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

[Correspondence] Oxygenation targets in acutely ill patients: still a matter of debate – Authors’ reply

For any given clinical question, well conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide the best information for clinical decision making by transparently evaluating and synthesising the totality of evidence of a greater number and wider range of patients than any individual study.1 In this context, Rasmussen and colleagues and Martin and colleagues claim that the heterogeneous populations and interventions analysed in the IOTA study2 limit its generalisability and the quality of evidence. However, this logic falls short because the treatment effects were consistent across populations (eg, stroke, myocardial infarction, and critical illness), settings (eg, critical care vs no critical care), and interventions (eg, nasal prongs vs mechanical ventilation).

email