Statistical analysis comparison of studies investigating the outcome of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the management of diabetic foot ulceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversial have been reported from studies evaluating the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) on diabetic foot ulceration (DFU), and the recommendations are inconsistent. The study objective was to systematically compare differences in methodological quality and conduct between studies favouring HBOT in the treatment of DFU and those that do not favour it. Secondary analysis of prospective comparative studies of the effectiveness of HBOT in DFU was performed. General information and study design were compared. Studies were classified as favouring HBOT if the primary outcome significantly favoured HBOT and non-favouring HBOT otherwise. Differences in various methodological quality domains were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Thirteen of the 18 included studies favoured HBOT. None of the included studies was multi-centre, and most of them (59%, 10/17) either did not mention funding information or reported no funding. RCTs comprised 78% (14/18); their overall methodological quality was moderate. A few studies favouring HBOT reported an intention-to-treat analysis (30%, 3/10), had sham control (31%, 4/13), and stated the adverse effects of HBOT (46%, 6/13). Of the studies that did not favour HBOT, only one reported sample size calculation; however, it employed an inappropriate outcome. Both those favouring and not favouring HBOT for DFU were of inadequate quality to explain the effect of HBOT on DFU. Sufficiently large and high-quality international, multi-centre, randomized controlled clinical trials are required to formally examine the efficacy of HBOT in DFU.
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 | 0.091 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".