MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hyperbaric oxygen for carbon monoxide poisoning

2005· review· en· W4235192500 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Juurlink, Matthew B. Stanbrook, Geoffrey K. Isbister, Michael Bennett, Michael McGuigan

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon monoxide poisoningMedicineRandomized controlled trialInterim analysisHyperbaric oxygenPoison controlClinical trialAnesthesiaEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) remains an important cause of accidental and intentional injury worldwide. Several unblinded non-randomized trials have suggested that the use of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) prevents the development of neurological sequelae. This has led to the widespread use of HBO in the management of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. OBJECTIVES: To examine randomized trials of the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) compared to normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurologic sequelae in patients with acute carbon monoxide poisoning. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966-present), EMBASE (1980-present), and the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, supplemented by a manual review of bibliographies of identified articles and discussion with recognized content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials involving non-pregnant adults acutely poisoned with carbon monoxide (regardless of severity), with adequate or unclear allocation concealment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted from each trial information on: the number of randomized patients, types of participants, the dose and duration of the intervention, and the prevalence of neurologic symptoms at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials of varying quality were identified; one was excluded because it did not evaluate clinical outcomes. Of the six remaining trials, two represent incomplete publications (one interim analysis, one abstract). Of these six trials, four found no benefit of HBO for the reduction of neurologic sequelae, while two others did. Although pooled analysis does not suggest a benefit from HBOT (OR for neurological deficits 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.12, p=0.18), significant methodologic and statistical heterogeneity was apparent among the trials, and this result should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, design or analysis flaws were evident in all trials. Importantly, the conclusions of one positive trial may have been influenced by failure to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing, while interpretation of the other positive trial is hampered by apparent changes in the primary outcome during the course of the trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing randomized trials do not establish whether the administration of HBO to patients with carbon monoxide poisoning reduces the incidence of adverse neurologic outcomes. Additional research is needed to better define the role, if any, of HBO in the treatment of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. This research question is ideally suited to a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations87
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207