ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Evaluating the Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency use of monoplace hyperbaric chamber to treat two patients simultaneously.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- Comment on "Evaluating the Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
- Response to Comments on "Evaluating the Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning".Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
- Correction to "Evaluating the Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
- Comment on
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To reassess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning through a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a subgroup analysis of treatment pressures exceeding 2.5 atm absolute (ATA). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating HBO therapy for acute CO poisoning. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Ichushi-Web databases, focusing on RCTs published up to June 2024. Only adult patients (≥ 18 years) were included, and studies were screened following PRISMA guidelines. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. Statistical analysis used a random effects model, with outcomes expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Six studies were included, and no significant benefit of HBO therapy was observed in terms of reducing mortality or improving neurological outcomes. The subgroup analysis of HBO at ≥ 2.5 ATA also showed no significant advantage over control treatments. Moderate to significant heterogeneity was found across included studies, and the quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. Conclusions: The efficacy of HBO therapy, even at ≥ 2.5 ATA, for improving outcomes in acute CO poisoning remains unproven. Despite these findings, HBO therapy may still hold potential benefits that require further exploration. High-quality, multicenter RCTs are necessary to better define its role in the treatment of CO poisoning. Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000054641.
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.