MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021839904 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001219

Can preventive hyperbaric oxygen therapy optimise surgical outcome?

2020· review· en· W3021839904 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Boet, Leonardo Martin, Olivia Cheng‐Boivin, Cole Etherington, Pierre Louge, Rodrigue Pignel, Michel Pellégrini, Marie-Anne Magnan, Michael H Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEHyperbaric oxygenSystematic reviewIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisClinical trialSurgeryPsychological interventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A primary underlying cause of postoperative complications is related to the surgical stress response, which may be mitigated by hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), the intermittent administration of oxygen at a pressure higher than the atmospheric pressure at sea level. Promising clinical studies have emerged suggesting HBOT's efficacy for reducing some postoperative complications. Notwithstanding, the effectiveness (if any) of HBOT across a range of procedures and postoperative outcomes has yet to be clearly quantified. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to summarise the existing literature on peri-operative HBOT to investigate its potential to optimise surgical patient outcome. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with narrative summary of results. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without language restrictions through to 19 June 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they involved patients of any age undergoing any surgical procedure and provided with at least one HBOT session in the peri-operative period. Two independent reviewers screened the initial identified trials and determined those to be included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. RESULTS: The search retrieved 775 references, of which 13 RCTs were included (627 patients). Ten RCTs (546 patients) reported treatment was effective for improving at least one of the patient outcomes assessed, while two studies (55 patients) did not find any benefit and one study (26 patients) found a negative effect. A wide range of patient outcomes were reported, and several other methodological limitations were observed among the included studies, such as limited use of sham comparator and lack of blinding. CONCLUSION: Peri-operative preventive HBOT may be a promising intervention to improve surgical patient outcome. However, future work should consider addressing the methodological weaknesses identified in this review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol (CRD42018102737) was registered with the International ProspectiveRegister of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207