Efficacy and Safety of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) is a vision-threatening condition with limited therapeutic options. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has emerged as a potential treatment to enhance retinal oxygenation and salvage ischemic tissue, though its efficacy and safety remain debated. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Databases were searched through November 2024 for studies comparing HBOT with control in RAO patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses evaluated visual acuity (VA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: = 0.01) after sensitivity analysis. No significant differences were observed in uncorrected VA or lines of improvement. AEs included seizures (1.47%), ear barotrauma (1.65%) and epistaxis (0.83%) in the HBOT group. Notably, HBOT was associated with lower rates of neovascular glaucoma (7.89% vs. 15.79%) and stroke (4.3% vs. 16.6%) compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: HBOT demonstrates potential for improved visual outcomes in RAO patients, particularly BCVA, with a generally favorable safety profile. However, heterogeneity among studies and limited sample sizes highlight the need for robust prospective trials to clarify its role in RAO management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".