A158 THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE AND ITS ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".