Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37365132›Full record

ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2023

Rebreather Forum Four consensus statements.

Simon J Mitchell, Neal W Pollock

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Simon J MitchellDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Neal W PollockDepartment of Kinesiology, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Closed circuit rebreathers have been widely adopted by technical divers as tools for reducing gas consumption and extending depth and duration capabilities. Rebreathers are technologically complex with many failure points, and their use appears associated with a higher accident rate than open circuit scuba. Rebreather Forum Four (RF4) was held in Malta in April 2023 attracting approximately 300 attendees and representatives of multiple manufacturers and training agencies. Over two and a half days a series of lectures was given by influential divers, engineers, researchers and educators on topics of contemporary relevance to rebreather diving safety. Each lecture was followed by a discussion session with audience participation. Potential consensus statements were drafted by the authors (SJM and NWP) during the course of the meeting. These were worded to be confluent with some important messages emerging from the presentations and subsequent discussions. The statements were presented one by one in a half-day plenary session of participants, and discussion was invited on each. After discussion and any necessary revision, the participants voted on whether to adopt the statement as a position of the forum. A clear majority was required for acceptance. Twenty-eight statements embracing thematic areas designated 'safety', 'research', 'operational issues', 'education and training', and 'engineering' were adopted. Those statements are presented along with contextualising narrative where necessary. The statements may help shape research and teaching initiatives, and research and development strategies over subsequent years.

Indexed as

DivingHumansMaltaTime FactorsAccidentsChecklistsDecompressionEducationEquipmentSafetyTechnical divingTraining

Identifiers

PMID37365132
PMCPMC10584388

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.