SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2022
The utilization of hyperbaric oxygenation therapy in hypospadias repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Indications for Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment: Registry Cohort Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Advancements in Hypospadias Management: Trends, Techniques, Training, and Patient-Centric Outcomes.Urology research & practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) use in hypospadias repair through systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in May 2021. Comparative studies assessing the surgical outcome of hypospadias repair between control versus HBOT utilization were identified and evaluated according to Cochrane collaboration recommendations. The assessed outcome includes hypospadias repair failures and graft failure for staged repair using a buccal graft. Relative risk with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extrapolated. A random-effect model was used to generate pooled effect estimates. Heterogeneity and inter-study variability were assessed using Chi-square and I-square. Subgroup analysis was performed according to primary repair versus redo-hypospadias with buccal graft. PROSPERO registration (CRD42021251423).
resultsFive comparative studies with 576 cases (301 HBOT versus 275 controls) were included. Overall pooled effect estimates showed that the HBOT group has significantly lesser hypospadias repair failure (RR 0.52, 95%CI 0.37, 0.72). Subgroup analysis on the use of HBOT for graft take showed lesser graft failure compared to the control group (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05, 0.75), while the use of HBOT for primary and redo single staged hypospadias repair showed lesser complication rate (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.40, 0.78). Based on ROBINS-I assessment, all included comparative studies are determined to be of serious risk of bias mainly due to presence of confounding.
conclusionThe currently available low-quality of evidence suggests that compared to control groups, HBOT as an adjunctive intervention to complicated hypospadias repair was able to reduce surgical outcome failure and graft failure rates.
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.