ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2023
A retrospective review of the utility of chest X-rays in diving and submarine medical examinations.
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 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.
- Decompression illness: a comprehensive overview.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Performance of routine Chest X-rays (CXRs) in asymptomatic individuals to assess hyperbaric exposure risk is controversial. The radiation risk may overshadow the low yield in many settings. However, the yield may be higher in certain settings, such as tuberculosis-endemic countries. We evaluated the utility of routine CXR in diving and submarine medical examinations in South Africa. Methods: Records of 2,777 CXRs during 3,568 fitness examinations of 894 divers and submariners spanning 31 years were reviewed to determine the incidence of CXR abnormality. Associated factors were evaluated using odds ratios and a binomial logistic regression model, with a Kaplan-Meier plot to describe the duration of service until first abnormal CXR. Results: An abnormal CXR was reported in 1.1% per person year of service, yielding a cumulative incidence of 6.5% (58/894) of the study participants. Only four individuals had a clinical indication for the CXR in their medical history. A range of potential pathologies were seen, of which 15.5% were declared disqualifying and the rest (84.5%) were treated, or further investigation showed that the person could be declared fit. Conclusions: In South Africa, a routine CXR has a role to play in detecting abnormalities that are incompatible with pressure exposures. The highest number of abnormalities were found during the initial examinations and in individuals with long service records. Only four individuals had a clinical indication for their CXR during the 31-year span of our study. Similar studies should be performed to make recommendations in other countries and settings.
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.