Can preventive hyperbaric oxygen therapy optimise surgical outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".