ReviewDiving and hyperbaric medicine2020
A review of diving practices and outcomes following the diagnosis of a persistent (patent) foramen ovale in compressed air divers with a documented episode of decompression sickness.
Review 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decompression illness: a comprehensive overview.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2024Article
- The management of patent foramen ovale in divers: where do we stand?Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe presence of a persistent (patent) foramen ovale (PFO) increases the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) whilst diving with pressurised air. After the diagnosis of a PFO, divers will be offered a number of options for risk mitigation. The aim of this study was to review the management choices and modifications to diving practices following PFO diagnosis in the era preceding the 2015 joint position statement (JPS) on PFO and diving.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted of divers sourced from both the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne and the Divers Alert Network Asia-Pacific during the period 2005-2015. Divers were contacted via a combination of phone, text, mail and email. Data collected included: diving habits (years, style and depths); DCS symptoms, signs and treatment; return to diving and modifications of dive practices; history of migraine and echocardiography (ECHO) pre- and post-intervention; ECHO technique(s) used, and success or failure of PFO closure (PFOC). Analyses were performed to compare the incidence of DCS pre- and post-PFO diagnosis.
resultsSeventy-three divers were interviewed. Sixty-eight of these returned to diving following the diagnosis of PFO. Thirty-eight underwent PFOC and chose to adopt conservative diving practices (CDPs); 15 chose PFOC with no modification to practices; 15 adopted CDPs alone; and five have discontinued diving. The incidence of DCS decreased significantly following PFOC and/or adoption of conservative diving practices. Of interest, migraine with aura resolved in almost all those who underwent PFOC.
conclusionsMany divers had already adopted practices consistent with the 2015 JPS permitting the resumption of scuba diving with a lowering of the incidence of DCS to that of the general diving population. These results support the recommendations of the JPS.
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.