ReviewTrials2026
Designing clinical research on hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a narrative review and practical methodological guide.
Review in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the main study designs for hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) clinical research. Based on study objectives, study types and use cases across different phases and settings are described, including before-and-after studies to detect early signals and feasibility, randomized controlled trials, including pragmatic RCTs, to confirm causality, multicenter stratified or adaptive designs to optimize protocols, and real-world studies to evaluate real-world effectiveness, safety, adherence, and health economic outcomes. To improve comparability and reproducibility, the following key elements are also proposed: the use of a pre-specified, pooled set of intervention parameters in each study (pressure, session duration, frequency, and overall course), the establishment of consistent and feasible inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the creation of a multilevel outcomes framework focusing on objective clinical endpoints and patient-reported outcomes, including specific safety and adherence monitoring. To overcome common challenges in HBOT research-protocol heterogeneity, blinding difficulties, interindividual variability in responses, and limitations in evidence synthesis-the article recommends standardized multicenter templates, stratified randomization, a predesigned statistical analysis plan, and mechanisms for data registration and sharing to enable cross-study pooling and long-term follow-up. Finally, a stepwise research pathway is proposed that begins with signal detection and confirmatory studies, progresses through parameter optimization and practice expansion, and ultimately leads to the creation of standardized clinical pathways and generalizable results. The goal is to provide a concise, practical methodological reference for proposal writing, funding applications, and implementation planning, thereby supporting more rigorous HBOT research in neurorehabilitation, tissue repair, chronic disease management, and healthy aging, particularly where current evidence remains exploratory or heterogeneous. This article is not intended as a systematic review of HBOT efficacy; instead, it is positioned as a narrative methodological review that uses current evidence limitations to inform trial design, feasibility assessment, interpretation, and transparent reporting.
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.