English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Double-blind trials in hyperbaric medicine: A narrative review on past experiences and considerations in designing sham hyperbaric treatment