Efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying randomised controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen treatment.

Introduction: Literature searches are routinely used by researchers for conducting systematic reviews as well as by healthcare providers, and sometimes patients, to quickly guide their clinical decisions. Using more than one database is generally recommended but may not always be necessary for some fields. This study aimed to determine the added value of searching additional databases beyond MEDLINE when conducting a literature search of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study consisted of two phases: a scoping review of all RCTs in the field of HBOT, followed by a a statistical analysis of sensitivity, precision, 'number needed to read' (NNR) and 'number unique' included by individual biomedical databases. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched without date or language restrictions up to December 31, 2022. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. RCTs were included if they involved human subjects and HBOT was offered either on its own or in combination with other treatments. Results: Out of 5,840 different citations identified, 367 were included for analysis. CENTRAL was the most sensitive (87.2%) and had the most unique references (7.1%). MEDLINE had the highest precision (23.8%) and optimal NNR (four). Among included references, 14.2% were unique to a single database. Conclusions: Systematic reviews of RCTs in HBOT should always utilise multiple databases, which at minimum include MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL.

Efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment to treat COVID-19 pneumonia: a living systematic review update.

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, new effective treatment options are essential for reducing morbidity and mortality as well as the strain placed on the healthcare system. Since publication of our initial review on hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) for hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients, interest in HBOT for COVID-19 has grown and additional studies have been published. METHODS: For this living systematic review update the previously published search strategy (excluding Google Scholar) was adopted with an extension from 01 February 2021 to 01 April 2022. Study inclusion criteria, data extraction, risk of bias estimation and dispute resolution methods were repeated. RESULTS: Two new studies enrolling 127 patients were included in this update, taking the total to eight studies with 224 patients. Both new studies were randomised controlled trials, one at moderate and one at high risk of bias. Across these eight studies, 114 patients were treated with HBOT. All reported improved clinical outcomes without observation of any serious adverse events. Meta-analysis remained unjustified given the high heterogeneity between studies and incomplete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: This updated living systematic review provides further evidence on the safety and effectiveness of HBOT to treat acute hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment in SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) pneumonia: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The need for intubation and mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients is associated with high mortality rates and places a substantial burden on the healthcare system. There is a strong pathophysiological rationale suggesting that hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT), a low-risk and non-invasive treatment, may be beneficial for COVID-19 patients. This systematic review aimed to explore the potential effectiveness and safety of HBOT for treating patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from December 2019 to February 2021, without language restrictions. The grey literature was searched via an internet search engine and targeted website and database searches. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Six publications (one cohort study, five case reports/series) met the inclusion criteria with a total of 37 hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients treated with HBOT. Of these 37 patients, the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation and in-hospital survival were assessed for 26 patients across three studies. Of these 26 patients, intubation and mechanical ventilation were not required for 24, and 23 patients survived. No serious adverse events of HBOT in COVID-19 patients were reported. No randomised trials have been published. CONCLUSIONS: Limited and weak evidence from non-randomised studies including one propensity-matched cohort study suggests HBOT is safe and may be a promising intervention to optimise treatment and outcomes in hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients. Randomised controlled studies are urgently needed.

Evidence for simulation-based education in hyperbaric medicine: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence from many areas of healthcare suggests that skills learned during simulation transfer to clinical settings; however, this has not yet been investigated in hyperbaric medicine. This systematic review aimed to identify, summarize, and assess the impact of simulation-based education in hyperbaric medicine. METHODS: Eligible studies investigated the effect of simulation-based education for learning in hyperbaric medicine, used any design, and were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. Learning outcomes across all Kirkpatrick levels were included. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Pairs of independent reviewers assessed references for study eligibility. RESULTS: We found no article assessing the impact of simulation-based education in hyperbaric medicine published in English. Only one potentially relevant paper published in German was found. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to determine how the hyperbaric medicine community and their patients may benefit from simulation-based education to optimize both practice and patient care.