ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Comparative effectiveness of varying hyperbaric oxygen protocols in the treatment of acute central retinal artery occlusion.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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 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.
- Perioperative central retinal artery occlusion after prone posterior cervical spine surgery treated with delayed hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a case report and targeted literature review.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Review
- Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Cognitive Impairment Resulting from Neurological Disorders: Mechanisms of Action and Application Advances.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe comparative effectiveness of different hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy doses in the acute treatment of central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) has not been evaluated.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the efficacy of an initial 2.8
resultsImprovement in ΔBCVA was significantly greater in the HBO18 group (median 0.62 LogMAR, mean -0.81 ± 0.73) compared with the HBO10 group (median 0.22 LogMAR, mean -0.34 ± 0.40, p < 0.001). Adverse events were similar in incidence between the treatment groups, with no severe occurrences necessitating the discontinuation of HBO reported. In multivariate analysis, HBO18 use was associated with a 0.5 LogMAR improvement in BCVA at 24 h (95% CI 0.3-0.7, p < 0.001), with greater initial BCVA impairment and shorter time to HBO further associated with better outcomes (0.20 LogMAR, 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p = 0.001; and 0.04 LogMAR/hour, 95% CI 0.02-0.04, p = 0.01, respectively).
conclusionsHBO18 as the initial therapy for CRAO seems to be associated with better short-term improvement in BCVA, compared with HBO10.
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.