Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16034959›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for acute ischaemic stroke.

M H Bennett, J Wasiak, A Schnabel, P Kranke, C French

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for acute ischaemic stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M H BennettDiving and Hyperbaric Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, Australia, 2031. m.bennett@unsw.edu.au
J Wasiak
A Schnabel
P Kranke
C French
Prince of Wales Hospital · AUThe Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Münster · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost cases of stroke are caused by impairment of blood flow to the brain (ischaemia) which results in a reduction in oxygen available and subsequent cell death. It has been postulated that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may reduce the volume of brain that will die by greatly increasing the oxygen available, and it may further improve outcome by reducing brain swelling. Some centres are using HBOT routinely to treat stroke.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive HBOT in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to July 2004), CINAHL (1982 to July 2004), and DORCTHIM (Database of Randomised Controlled Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine) (from inception to 2004). We handsearched journals and conference proceedings, searched reference lists of articles, and contacted researchers in an effort to identify additional published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of adjunctive HBOT with no HBOT (no treatment or sham). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors used standardised forms to extract the data independently. Each trial was assessed for internal validity with differences resolved by discussion. Data were extracted and entered into RevMan 4.2. MAIN

resultsThree randomised controlled trials (106 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials varied but was generally high. Data could be pooled for a limited number of clinically important outcomes. There were no significant differences in mortality rate at six months in those receiving HBOT compared to the control group (relative risk 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 2.2, P value 0.45). Two of 15 scale measures of disability and functional indicated an improvement following HBOT, both at one year follow up: the mean Trouillas Disability Scale was lower with HBOT (mean difference (MD) 2.2 points reduction with HBOT, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.3, P value 0.04) and the mean Orgogozo Scale was higher (MD 27.9 points, 95% CI 4.0 to 51.8, P value 0.02). These improvements were not reflected in other trials or functional scales. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis systematic review has not found evidence to show that HBOT improves clinical outcomes when applied during the acute presentation of ischaemic stroke. While evidence from the three randomised controlled trials is insufficient to provide clear guidelines for practice, clinical benefit does not seem likely. Further research is required to better define the role of HBOT in this condition.

Indexed as

Hyperbaric OxygenationBrain IschemiaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStroke

Identifiers

PMID16034959
OpenAlexW4232063241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.