Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
Background Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which consists of breathing 100% oxygen under a higher atmospheric pressure than normal, is utilized worldwide in the treatment of several diseases. With the growing demand for evidence-based research, hyperbaric oxygen therapy has been criticized for delivering too little high-quality research, mainly in the form of randomized controlled trials. While not always indispensable, the addition of a sham-controlled group to such a trial can contribute to the quality of the research. However, the design of a sham (hyperbaric) treatment is associated with several considerations regarding adequate blinding and the use of pressure and oxygen. This narrative review discusses information on the sham profile and the blinding and safety of double-blind trials in hyperbaric medicine, irrespective of the indication for treatment. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for sham-controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen therapy. The control treatment was considered sham if patients were blinded to their allocation and treatment took place in a hyperbaric chamber, with no restrictions regarding pressurization, oxygen levels or indication. Studies involving children or only one session of hyperbaric oxygen were excluded. Information on (the choice of) treatment profile, blinding measures, patient's perception regarding allocation and safety issues was extracted from eligible studies. Results A total of 42 eligible trials were included. The main strategies for sham treatment were (1) use of a lower pressure than that of the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing 21% oxygen; (2) use of the same pressure as the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing an adjusted percentage of oxygen; and (3) use of the same pressure as the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing 21% oxygen. The advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are discussed using the information provided by the trials. Conclusion Based on this review, using a lower pressure than the hyperbaric oxygen group while breathing 21% oxygen best matches the inertness of the placebo. Although studies show that use of a lower pressure does allow adequate blinding, this is associated with more practical issues than with the other strategies. The choice of which sham profile to use requires careful consideration; moreover, to ensure proper performance, a clear and detailed protocol is also required.
Pubmed ID: 29865904
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
Comprehensive international bibliographic biomedical database that enables users to track and retrieve precise information on drugs and diseases from pre-clinical studies to searches on critical toxicological information. It contains bibliographic records with citations, abstracts and indexing derived from biomedical articles in peer reviewed journals, and is especially strong in its coverage of drug and pharmaceutical research. Embase can help with everything from clinical trials research to pharmacovigilance and is updated online daily and weekly. Its broad biomedical scope covers the following areas: * Drug therapy and research, including pharmaceutics, pharmacology and toxicology * Clinical and experimental (human) medicine * Basic biological science relevant to human medicine * Biotechnology and biomedical engineering, including medical devices * Health policy and management, including pharmacoeconomics * Public, occupational and environmental health, including pollution control * Veterinary science, dentistry, and nursing The Embase Application Programming Interface supports export, RSS feeds, and integration services, making it possible to share data with a wide range of systems.
View all literature mentionsA premier bibliographic database that contains over 18 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). PubMed provides free access to MEDLINE and links to full text articles when possible. The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an NIH-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications. Some additional journals and newsletters are selected based on NLM-initiated reviews, e.g., history of medicine, health services research, AIDS, toxicology and environmental health, molecular biology, and complementary medicine, that are special priorities for NLM or other NIH components. These reviews generally also involve consultation with an array of NIH and outside experts or, in some cases, external organizations with which NLM has special collaborative arrangements. MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed, part of the Entrez series of databases provided by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). MEDLINE may also be searched via the NLM Gateway. Time coverage: generally 1946 to the present, with some older material. Source: Currently, citations from approximately 5,516 worldwide journals in 39 languages; 60 languages for older journals. Citations for MEDLINE are created by the NLM, international partners, and collaborating organizations.
View all literature mentionsA controlled vocabulary thesaurus that consists of sets of terms naming descriptors in a hierarchical structure that permits searching at various levels of specificity. MeSH, in machine-readable form, is provided at no charge via electronic means. MeSH descriptors are arranged in both an alphabetic and a hierarchical structure. At the most general level of the hierarchical structure are very broad headings such as Anatomy or Mental Disorders. More specific headings are found at more narrow levels of the twelve-level hierarchy, such as Ankle and Conduct Disorder. There are 27,149 descriptors in 2014 MeSH. There are also over 218,000 entry terms that assist in finding the most appropriate MeSH Heading, for example, Vitamin C is an entry term to Ascorbic Acid. In addition to these headings, there are more than 219,000 headings called Supplementary Concept Records (formerly Supplementary Chemical Records) within a separate thesaurus. The MeSH thesaurus is used by NLM for indexing articles from 5,400 of the world''''s leading biomedical journals for the MEDLINE/PubMED database. It is also used for the NLM-produced database that includes cataloging of books, documents, and audiovisuals acquired by the Library. Each bibliographic reference is associated with a set of MeSH terms that describe the content of the item. Similarly, search queries use MeSH vocabulary to find items on a desired topic.
View all literature mentions