ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2020
Evaluation of the Abbot FreeStyle Optium Neo H blood glucose meter in the hyperbaric oxygen environment.
Article in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of venous, capillary and interstitial blood glucose data measured during hyperbaric oxygen treatment from patients with diabetes mellitus.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study investigated the effects of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) on the accuracy and reliability of point-of-care fingertip capillary blood glucose values in euglycaemic non-diabetic participants compared against venous serum blood glucose samples processed in an accredited pathology laboratory.
methodTen non-diabetic hyperbaric staff members (age 35-55 years) underwent a standard 243 kPa HBOT exposure for 95 minutes. Blood glucose levels were measured via (i) finger-prick capillary test using the FreeStyle Optium™ Neo H glucometer and (ii) venous serum test using the Cobas 6000 laboratory analyser. Samples were taken at (T1) 0 minutes (pre-HBOT), (T2) 25 minutes, and (T3) 55 minutes into HBOT.
resultsAll participants were euglycaemic at T1 (BGL 3.8-5.4 mmol·L⁻¹). The highest venous serum value was 5.90 mmol·L⁻¹ at T3 and the highest capillary value was 6.30 mmol·L⁻¹ at T1. Post hoc tests showed a statistically significant difference between the mean capillary result pre-dive (T1) and readings at T2 (P = 0.001) and T3 (P < 0.001) while differences between T2 and T3 capillary results were not statistically significant, illustrating the effect of HBOT on capillary beds. Differences in venous values across the time points were not significant.
conclusionVenous serum glucose samples processed in an accredited laboratory may be more consistently accurate, but capillary point-of-care testing avoids delays in sample processing and provides glucose data that are of clinical relevance. The FreeStyle Optium™ Neo H glucometer is safe to use and provides a reliable measurement of blood glucose in the HBOT environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.