A158 THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE AND ITS ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) corrects tissue hypoxia, mobilizes stem cells and has immunomodulatory effects, all of which are key mechanisms for healing wounds. A number of studies have suggested that HBOT may be effective for healing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aims Our systematic review aimed to quantify the effectiveness and safety of HBOT in IBD and its associated conditions. Methods We performed a proportional meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception through November 2020 with no language restriction. We included randomized controlled studies, cohort studies and case series that contained a minimum of three patients and reported effectiveness and/or safety outcomes for HBOT in patients with IBD. Studies were stratified by IBD phenotype and weighted summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for clinical response and remission using random-effects models. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and a modified version of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) checklist for observational studies. Results Nineteen studies met our study criteria: 3 randomized controlled trials and 16 case series. The studies reported outcomes for luminal ulcerative colitis (UC) (n=373), luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) (n=250), enterocutaneous fistulae (ECF) (n=21), perianal CD (n=115), pouch disorders (n=60), pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) (n=5) and perianal sinus/metastatic CD (n=7). Rates of clinical response were 86% (95% CI, 66–95%) for luminal UC, 86% (95% CI, 81–90%) for luminal CD, 85% (95% CI, 61–95%) for ECF, 80% (95% CI, 70–87%) for perianal CD, 65% (95% CI, 52–76%) for pouch disorders, 92% (95% CI, 38–99%) for PG and 79% (95% CI, 36–96%) for perianal sinus/metastatic CD. Rates of clinical remission were 87% (95% CI, 10–100%) for luminal UC, 88% for luminal CD (95% CI, 46–98%), 50% for ECF (95% CI, 12–88%), 64% (95% CI, 52–75%) for perianal CD, 31% (95% CI, 16–50%) for pouch disorders, 92% (95% CI, 38–100%) for PG and 65% (95% CI, 10–97%) for perianal sinus/metastatic CD. Of the ten studies that reported on safety of HBOT, 19 patients (10.5%) had minor adverse events and no major event was reported. Study quality was low in the majority of studies due to an absence of comparator arms, inadequate description of interventions, and poorly defined outcomes. Conclusions Limited high-quality evidence suggest that HBOT is safe and associated with high rates of clinical response and remission for luminal IBD, perianal CD and pouch disorders. A well-designed large multicenter randomized controlled trial is warranted to confirm the benefit of HBOT in IBD. doi:10.17605/osf.io/gpz6d Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».