This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hyperbaric medicine.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarvardOcDoc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
HBOT seems a little hokey and alternative-mediciny, and the Indications paragraph does mention that there has been controversy around the treatment. But it would seem this should warrant a whole section, not just a sentence with an external link to sources. Psychlohexane ( talk) 02:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why this might be effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.32.110 ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain which therapeutic mechanism is at work in air/gas embolism? It seems quite plausible that it is the overall pressure which would serve to minimize the volume of any given amount of gas, but I don't have any references for that. Comments, please? Kosebamse 21:08, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the pressure causes a decrease in the volume and therefor surface area of the bubble. The bubble acts to stop blood flow in the vessel in which it is impacted. Decreasing the surface area causes the bubble to migrate peripherally and thus impact smaller vessels. The bubble is comprised of 79% nitrogen. Using 100% oxygen causes a nitrogen gradient which causes the bubble to dissolve over time.
After regular treatment (for unrelated ailments), my uncle reports that he no longer needs his thick glasses for driving. 68.167.2.149
This is probably due to a side effect of hyperbaric oxygen that is poorly understood. Some people find that after usually 20-30 treatments with hyperbaric oxygen they develop short sightedness (myopia). This may infact have the effect of correcting your uncles hypermetropia (long sightedness)to a small degree "improving" his eyesight.
Unfortunately the effect is usually temporary and resolves within 6 weeks to 4 months after the end of treatment.
This may sound obvious, but the article launches into HBOT without defining the term "hyperbaric". Many readers will not know what that means. In fact HBOT is so common that sometimes "hyperbaric" is merely assumed to mean HBOT, whereas the actual definition is "of, relating to, or utilizing greater than normal pressure". Joema 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
4.1 PSI is not the pressure at 10 ft below water
No, but it's the gauge pressure of a gauge zeroed at sea level. Whoever put in that fact meant 4.1 psi gauge pressure or overpressure, not 4.1 psi absolute (which should ring alarms right there as it's, oh, dangerously lower than the standard atmosphere). Why point out the mistake if one isn't going to take the time to fix it? -- The Centipede 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are most certified physicians who use hyperbaric medicine for clinical purposes anesthesiologists?
Probably because hyperbaric oxygen therapy uses pure oxygen, there's still a debate on whether or not pure oxygen is a euphoric, and it's probably a matter of "better safe than sorry." Anesthesiologists would be expected to know the narcotic (term used very loosely) limits and toxicity of pure oxygen better than, say, a general practicioner and HBOT strikes me as a bit too ground-level for those relatively rare doctors that specialize in organic chemistry. -- The Centipede 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Some recent edits seem to have broken the page structure and I have reverted to an earlier version. Some edits may have been lost. My apologies, will try to restore what's worth restoring. And please, everybody, do try and use the preview function when editing, it would really help. Kosebamse 08:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest material describing the physics and engineering of the hyperbaric chamber be split off into a separate article called Hyperbaric chamber not redirecting here, since such chambers have other uses than HBOT, in (actual) diving and decompression. I was going to direct some diving technology links to 'hyperbaric chamber' but it makes no sense to do so when they end up at an article headed HBOT. Rexparry sydney 11:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hyberbaric medicine seems like a much better name. Any objections? User:Hopping T 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been rewriting several parts of the article. Mostly reorganizations for logical flow and readability, and removing a lot of tangental material. I see some additional things to do as well, mainly involving references. I will try to get sources where requested, check that the present ones are reflected accurately, and unify their formatting. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The HBOT has been shown to help because it increases the amount of oxygen the blood plasma can hold, should we include this in the article?-- Ngilliamdesmet ( talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This gives the appearance of being one sided, unless of course there have never been reports that HBOT was of no benefit. I don't mean complications such as barotrauma, I mean someone who reliably tested Neuro Rehab HBOT and saw no benefit. If they exist they should also be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamblis ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
why is it that some other pages that this can help with cancer and really there is no proven fact that it can also that they know that it can't. Do you know why it says that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.239.2 ( talk) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The simplest answer is that this article doesn't claim that HBOT can heal cancer. Cancer is only mentioned (three times) in the section called "Contraindications" - that is, the conditions where HBOT is not appropriate. To be precise, it states that HBOT promotes growth of new blood vessels (which encourages tumours to grow) but that high oxygen levels may discourage the growth of tumours. It would be worth reading the references cited (Takenaka et al and Stubbs et al) for more information on the interaction of HBOT with cancer treatment. Hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No mention is made specifically about ORN of the mandible.
Gerlach NL, Barkhuysen R, Kaanders JH, Janssens GO, Sterk W, Merkx MA (2008). "The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on quality of life in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy". Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 37 (3): 255–9.
doi:
10.1016/j.ijom.2007.11.013.
PMID
18262761. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Pitak-Arnnop P, Sader R, Dhanuthai K; et al. (2008). "Management of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws: an analysis of evidence". Eur J Surg Oncol. 34 (10): 1123–34.
doi:
10.1016/j.ejso.2008.03.014.
PMID
18455907. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the neuro section, there is a paragraph giving considerable detail on the first RDB HBOT trial for MS, and then augments it by referencing a couple more studies with similar results. The following (single-sentence) paragraph gives a Cochrane review of upwards of twenty trials, which comes to the opposite conclusion.
For both prose and WEIGHT considerations, I propose to trim the first PP to only mention the 1983 study (as it was the first), but summarize much more succinctly its results - that HBOT showed promise. Then refer to the Cochrane review which "updates" that commentary to current state of affairs. This will have several advantages: reduced statisticruft, better showing the historical trajectory of the evidence, and NPOV. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is an image of a TCOM machine for determining if a patient with diabetic foot ulcers is suitable for HBOT tx.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a source for the claim "Physiologically, the human body cannot tell the difference between 80% and 100% Oxygen. (The difference is clinically insignificant ...". While the difference between 80% and 100% oxygen when considering home treatment may be insignificant, the unqualified statement is false in my experience. In particular, treating gas embolism with 80% oxygen is not preferred, since it reduces the inert gas pressure gradient and reduces its effectiveness. If a reliable source exists that verifies the claim, then I'm content if it is supplied; otherwise I'd prefer the article not to make blanket statements that I don't believe are supportable. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Every once in a while, content is added describing the use of HBOT to treat autism. While I have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of such claims, I do believe that content in Wikipedia must meet the requirements of verifiability from reliable sources. I've removed a paragraph from "Neuro-rehabilitation" for that reason, even though the original poster did note that they "... do not know how to link the Maia Chung art. to this one." - unfortunately Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so can't be used to cite claims in other articles. The article is Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation, which I've removed from "See also" as there is no verifiable reason why it should be linked from here. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)I hadn't seen the Hyperbaric medicine #Neuro-rehabilitation section and agree that it overlaps with Uses. Two things:
Eubulides ( talk) 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's important to note that Rossignol is associated with the 'International Child Development Resource Center', a group which fleeces desperate parents of autistic children, and aids other frauds in fleecing them. The ICDRC employs other laudable paragons of modest ethical conduct like Andrew Wakefield. [1] Nevard ( talk) 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section of the article is very seriously problematic, including clear original research and selective use of primary studies etc etc. I'll get to it soon, if somebody else doesn't. -- Slp1 ( talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Purely anecdotally, a friend's son who's recently started hyperbaric oxygen therpay has been 'transformed' (positively) by it, said the father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.125.239 ( talk) 09:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Against a B-class checklist, the article has some shortcomings:
I've graded it C-class for WikiProject SCUBA. There is a lot of good content and getting good references should be a priority. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted the removal of the mention of fire risk from the sentence: "The exhaled gas must be removed from the chamber to prevent the build up of oxygen, which could provoke a fire". I agree that the statement needs sourcing, but I can only find the following online from Recognized Hyperbaric Safety Codes and Standards:
It is the position of the National Board of Diving & Hyperbaric Medical Technology that the codes and standards expressed in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ safety Standard for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (ASME PVHO-1)* and the National Fire Protection Association 99, Health care Facilities, Chapter 20, (Hyperbaric Facilities)** be rigorously adhered to.
which refers to other documents that I can't track down online. Does anyone have access to any of these, particularly something that illustrates the procedure for keeping the fraction of O2 below 25%? -- RexxS ( talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Spacebus57 ( talk · contribs) gave the following source:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)It may be helpful for expanding the article. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This article describes: the principles behind hyperbaric medicine; the list of conditions for which its use has been approved; how the treatment works; possible negative side-effects; and so on, but what seems to be missing is information about how effective it is as a treatment. The last section, 'Neuro-rehabilitation', describes the results of studies into its effectiveness for treating certain neurological conditions; but what about all the other conditions? I assume that since it is approved for use for treating carbon monoxide poisoning (for example), there is some evidence that it is actually effective at treating it, but it would be nice to see such information in the article. Robofish ( talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to take care not to assume that our experience of HBOT is representative of hyperbaric medicine throughout the world. Removing an external link that is outdated or duplicates content already present is good, as long as we realise that links such as the one removed actually refer to the UK, while our article section Indications lists approved indications only for the US. As I agree that it's not ideal as an external link, I'll place this link here http://www.londonhyperbaric.com/hyperbaric-treatments to point editors towards a source that lists typical indications in the UK, in the hope that someone will expand the section at some future time. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
if there is only oxygen u dont need 2 breathe out cuz ur body uses oxygen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fduhgide ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My wife has been diagnosed and treated for Alzheimer's Disease. I have heard recently that there have been recorded successes of hyperbaric treatment improving the function of some individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Where is it possible to get these results and secondly where are the hyperbaric chambers located? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.36.175 ( talk) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
A photograph is in the article of a father and son "receiving treatment for autism". Is that not WP:undue weight? I'll await consensus before removing the image from the article. Wzrd1 ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely about HBOT, with snippets about therapeutic recompression, many of which just confuse the issue. Before I start trying to fix this, I would like a consensus from WP:WikiProject Medicine on what the article is actually intended to be about. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If true, could the lead confirm that Therapeutic recompression is done with normal air (N2+O2...), or what is used ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Fedorko L et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not reduce indications for amputation in patients with diabetes with nonhealing ulcers of the lower limb: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2016 Mar; 39:392. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2001) - See more at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SA2ovEwoAKUJ:www.jwatch.org/na40866/2016/03/24/hyperbaric-oxygen-not-effective-chronic-diabetic-foot+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.DnGyKzhS.dpuf Paywalled so I can't read it. Someone from Wikiproject:Medicine? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"no conclusion can be made with regard to number of amputations due to DFU". So HBOT doesn't seem to have any impact on amputation as a outcome (these would be severe cases) when treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), although HBOT does seem to contribute to regression of symptoms and improved healing of DFU in general. Does that help? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It is 9 years and more than 500 edits since last B-class check, so here we go again:
Could probably be brought up to scratch with a little work, so I will see what I can do to clear the citation deficiency. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It is seems that author has prejudice about hyperbaric medicine, at least one section is need to be reworked. Hyperbaric medicine is shown like it is a something fake, at least in the section about cancer, meanwhile science doesn't have exact opinion in this case. Moreover, for example, this article - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11523-012-0233-x (by the way, cited in the wiki article, in THIS section, but only with negative aspect) show quite another view. Hyperbaric medicine may be perspective adjuvant therapy to chimiotherapy and radiation therapy. Actually I am rather inclined to believe this large meticulous article than in small sloppy maked section in wiki. It is seems to be like the author more willingly show to us just dark side of the coin. Anyway, the hint on alternative medicine looks ridiculously. I didn't review scrupulosly other sections of article, but, if they were done like the section of cancer, whole article is need to be reworked. It is look like author states that hyperbaric medicine is something like placebo for everything except for treatment of decompression disease, don't research it, just focus on something more promicing. At least the article makes such an impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.13.29 ( talk) 12:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the previous version of the article before two changes by RyanSpringer.
The first edit was the addition of:
Another Therapeutic response of HBOT is the speed up of Angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). This is especially important in not only wound healing but also treating late effects of radiation. HBOT has been shown to speed up Angiogenesis through irradiated tissue to help heal and make the tissue more viable.
which may or may not be true, but was completely unsourced. WP:MEDRS requires all biomedical claims to be sourced to reliable secondary sources.
The second edit replaced a concise summary of a 2015 review with a wordy commentary on a 2009 review. Both reviews concluded that HBOT increased the rate of early healing of diabetic foot ulcers, but the later review contradicted the earlier's review's conclusion about major amputation rate. Our guidance at WP:MEDDATE is to prefer later reviews over earlier ones, and to prefer reviews less than about five years old to older ones. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@
Naftalig: I've reverted the addition of primary sources to contradict the conclusions of a secondary review. The article Efrati, Shai; Ben-Jacob, Eshel; Shlamkovitch, Nathan; Hoofien, Dan; Friedman, Mony; Bergan, Jacob; Volkov, Olga; Bechor, Yair; Fishlev, Gregori (2013-11-15).
"Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Can Improve Post Concussion Syndrome Years after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury - Randomized Prospective Trial". PLOS ONE. 8 (11): e79995.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0079995.
ISSN
1932-6203.
PMC
3829860.
PMID
24260334.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) is a trial and nothing more than a primary source in Wikipedia's terms. Our guidance at
WP:MEDRS specifically prohibits using primary sources for "debunking, contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources". --
RexxS (
talk) 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I strongly disagree that changes like this, where you remove information such as the authors' first names is an improvement to the article. I agree that citations should be consistent, but the article has used last, first for authors for the majority of the cases in the past and should not be degraded by attempting to switch to an inferior citation style simply as a matter of personal preference. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in cases where author first initials were there to begin with. The predominate style of authors if one goes back far enough was to use authors first name initials, and even very recently, at least half of the references used initials. So I am not sure that the precedence is clear cut. If you want to remove the |name-list-format=vanc
parameters, I will not object.
Boghog (
talk) 13:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)|name-list-format=vanc
. So now any first author full name that are present are now displayed.
Boghog (
talk) 13:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
|vauthors=
. And if one goes back far enough, the predominate style used first name initials. It seems overkill to use |first1=
, |last1=
, ... when only the first name initials are stored. |vauthors=
stores a comma delimited list of author names (no loss of granularity) and the first and last names are parsed by the template produce clean meta data. I am surprised to hear that |veditors=
doesn't produce clean meta data. I assumed it behaved like |vauthors=
.
Boghog (
talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC) (Looking at
Module:Citation/CS1, it appears that veditors is split apart just like vauthors)
Boghog (
talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)|vauthors=
has at least two advantages. The first is compactness (reducing the size of bloated cite templates) and the second is consistency (enforced with error checking by the template). There are few restriction on what can be stored in |first=
(initials with or without periods, first and middle initials separated or not separated by spaces, even gibberish such as "@#$%^&" is accepted ).
Boghog (
talk) 17:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)One of the citations (currently #68), Rosen's Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice (5th ed) -- has a link to an incomplete archived textbook that only goes until chapter 132. However it is cited for chapter 194 which is inaccessible. I looked through the available chapters and they lack the cited information.
If anyone has a recommendation on where I can find the complete textbook or the proper way to mark this invalid source let me know, I'm new to Wikipedia. 35drake ( talk) 16:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hyperbaric medicine.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarvardOcDoc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
HBOT seems a little hokey and alternative-mediciny, and the Indications paragraph does mention that there has been controversy around the treatment. But it would seem this should warrant a whole section, not just a sentence with an external link to sources. Psychlohexane ( talk) 02:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why this might be effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.32.110 ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain which therapeutic mechanism is at work in air/gas embolism? It seems quite plausible that it is the overall pressure which would serve to minimize the volume of any given amount of gas, but I don't have any references for that. Comments, please? Kosebamse 21:08, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the pressure causes a decrease in the volume and therefor surface area of the bubble. The bubble acts to stop blood flow in the vessel in which it is impacted. Decreasing the surface area causes the bubble to migrate peripherally and thus impact smaller vessels. The bubble is comprised of 79% nitrogen. Using 100% oxygen causes a nitrogen gradient which causes the bubble to dissolve over time.
After regular treatment (for unrelated ailments), my uncle reports that he no longer needs his thick glasses for driving. 68.167.2.149
This is probably due to a side effect of hyperbaric oxygen that is poorly understood. Some people find that after usually 20-30 treatments with hyperbaric oxygen they develop short sightedness (myopia). This may infact have the effect of correcting your uncles hypermetropia (long sightedness)to a small degree "improving" his eyesight.
Unfortunately the effect is usually temporary and resolves within 6 weeks to 4 months after the end of treatment.
This may sound obvious, but the article launches into HBOT without defining the term "hyperbaric". Many readers will not know what that means. In fact HBOT is so common that sometimes "hyperbaric" is merely assumed to mean HBOT, whereas the actual definition is "of, relating to, or utilizing greater than normal pressure". Joema 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
4.1 PSI is not the pressure at 10 ft below water
No, but it's the gauge pressure of a gauge zeroed at sea level. Whoever put in that fact meant 4.1 psi gauge pressure or overpressure, not 4.1 psi absolute (which should ring alarms right there as it's, oh, dangerously lower than the standard atmosphere). Why point out the mistake if one isn't going to take the time to fix it? -- The Centipede 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are most certified physicians who use hyperbaric medicine for clinical purposes anesthesiologists?
Probably because hyperbaric oxygen therapy uses pure oxygen, there's still a debate on whether or not pure oxygen is a euphoric, and it's probably a matter of "better safe than sorry." Anesthesiologists would be expected to know the narcotic (term used very loosely) limits and toxicity of pure oxygen better than, say, a general practicioner and HBOT strikes me as a bit too ground-level for those relatively rare doctors that specialize in organic chemistry. -- The Centipede 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Some recent edits seem to have broken the page structure and I have reverted to an earlier version. Some edits may have been lost. My apologies, will try to restore what's worth restoring. And please, everybody, do try and use the preview function when editing, it would really help. Kosebamse 08:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest material describing the physics and engineering of the hyperbaric chamber be split off into a separate article called Hyperbaric chamber not redirecting here, since such chambers have other uses than HBOT, in (actual) diving and decompression. I was going to direct some diving technology links to 'hyperbaric chamber' but it makes no sense to do so when they end up at an article headed HBOT. Rexparry sydney 11:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hyberbaric medicine seems like a much better name. Any objections? User:Hopping T 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been rewriting several parts of the article. Mostly reorganizations for logical flow and readability, and removing a lot of tangental material. I see some additional things to do as well, mainly involving references. I will try to get sources where requested, check that the present ones are reflected accurately, and unify their formatting. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The HBOT has been shown to help because it increases the amount of oxygen the blood plasma can hold, should we include this in the article?-- Ngilliamdesmet ( talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This gives the appearance of being one sided, unless of course there have never been reports that HBOT was of no benefit. I don't mean complications such as barotrauma, I mean someone who reliably tested Neuro Rehab HBOT and saw no benefit. If they exist they should also be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamblis ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
why is it that some other pages that this can help with cancer and really there is no proven fact that it can also that they know that it can't. Do you know why it says that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.239.2 ( talk) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The simplest answer is that this article doesn't claim that HBOT can heal cancer. Cancer is only mentioned (three times) in the section called "Contraindications" - that is, the conditions where HBOT is not appropriate. To be precise, it states that HBOT promotes growth of new blood vessels (which encourages tumours to grow) but that high oxygen levels may discourage the growth of tumours. It would be worth reading the references cited (Takenaka et al and Stubbs et al) for more information on the interaction of HBOT with cancer treatment. Hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No mention is made specifically about ORN of the mandible.
Gerlach NL, Barkhuysen R, Kaanders JH, Janssens GO, Sterk W, Merkx MA (2008). "The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on quality of life in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy". Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 37 (3): 255–9.
doi:
10.1016/j.ijom.2007.11.013.
PMID
18262761. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Pitak-Arnnop P, Sader R, Dhanuthai K; et al. (2008). "Management of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws: an analysis of evidence". Eur J Surg Oncol. 34 (10): 1123–34.
doi:
10.1016/j.ejso.2008.03.014.
PMID
18455907. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the neuro section, there is a paragraph giving considerable detail on the first RDB HBOT trial for MS, and then augments it by referencing a couple more studies with similar results. The following (single-sentence) paragraph gives a Cochrane review of upwards of twenty trials, which comes to the opposite conclusion.
For both prose and WEIGHT considerations, I propose to trim the first PP to only mention the 1983 study (as it was the first), but summarize much more succinctly its results - that HBOT showed promise. Then refer to the Cochrane review which "updates" that commentary to current state of affairs. This will have several advantages: reduced statisticruft, better showing the historical trajectory of the evidence, and NPOV. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is an image of a TCOM machine for determining if a patient with diabetic foot ulcers is suitable for HBOT tx.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a source for the claim "Physiologically, the human body cannot tell the difference between 80% and 100% Oxygen. (The difference is clinically insignificant ...". While the difference between 80% and 100% oxygen when considering home treatment may be insignificant, the unqualified statement is false in my experience. In particular, treating gas embolism with 80% oxygen is not preferred, since it reduces the inert gas pressure gradient and reduces its effectiveness. If a reliable source exists that verifies the claim, then I'm content if it is supplied; otherwise I'd prefer the article not to make blanket statements that I don't believe are supportable. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Every once in a while, content is added describing the use of HBOT to treat autism. While I have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of such claims, I do believe that content in Wikipedia must meet the requirements of verifiability from reliable sources. I've removed a paragraph from "Neuro-rehabilitation" for that reason, even though the original poster did note that they "... do not know how to link the Maia Chung art. to this one." - unfortunately Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so can't be used to cite claims in other articles. The article is Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation, which I've removed from "See also" as there is no verifiable reason why it should be linked from here. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)I hadn't seen the Hyperbaric medicine #Neuro-rehabilitation section and agree that it overlaps with Uses. Two things:
Eubulides ( talk) 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's important to note that Rossignol is associated with the 'International Child Development Resource Center', a group which fleeces desperate parents of autistic children, and aids other frauds in fleecing them. The ICDRC employs other laudable paragons of modest ethical conduct like Andrew Wakefield. [1] Nevard ( talk) 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section of the article is very seriously problematic, including clear original research and selective use of primary studies etc etc. I'll get to it soon, if somebody else doesn't. -- Slp1 ( talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Purely anecdotally, a friend's son who's recently started hyperbaric oxygen therpay has been 'transformed' (positively) by it, said the father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.125.239 ( talk) 09:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Against a B-class checklist, the article has some shortcomings:
I've graded it C-class for WikiProject SCUBA. There is a lot of good content and getting good references should be a priority. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted the removal of the mention of fire risk from the sentence: "The exhaled gas must be removed from the chamber to prevent the build up of oxygen, which could provoke a fire". I agree that the statement needs sourcing, but I can only find the following online from Recognized Hyperbaric Safety Codes and Standards:
It is the position of the National Board of Diving & Hyperbaric Medical Technology that the codes and standards expressed in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ safety Standard for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (ASME PVHO-1)* and the National Fire Protection Association 99, Health care Facilities, Chapter 20, (Hyperbaric Facilities)** be rigorously adhered to.
which refers to other documents that I can't track down online. Does anyone have access to any of these, particularly something that illustrates the procedure for keeping the fraction of O2 below 25%? -- RexxS ( talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Spacebus57 ( talk · contribs) gave the following source:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)It may be helpful for expanding the article. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This article describes: the principles behind hyperbaric medicine; the list of conditions for which its use has been approved; how the treatment works; possible negative side-effects; and so on, but what seems to be missing is information about how effective it is as a treatment. The last section, 'Neuro-rehabilitation', describes the results of studies into its effectiveness for treating certain neurological conditions; but what about all the other conditions? I assume that since it is approved for use for treating carbon monoxide poisoning (for example), there is some evidence that it is actually effective at treating it, but it would be nice to see such information in the article. Robofish ( talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to take care not to assume that our experience of HBOT is representative of hyperbaric medicine throughout the world. Removing an external link that is outdated or duplicates content already present is good, as long as we realise that links such as the one removed actually refer to the UK, while our article section Indications lists approved indications only for the US. As I agree that it's not ideal as an external link, I'll place this link here http://www.londonhyperbaric.com/hyperbaric-treatments to point editors towards a source that lists typical indications in the UK, in the hope that someone will expand the section at some future time. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
if there is only oxygen u dont need 2 breathe out cuz ur body uses oxygen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fduhgide ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My wife has been diagnosed and treated for Alzheimer's Disease. I have heard recently that there have been recorded successes of hyperbaric treatment improving the function of some individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Where is it possible to get these results and secondly where are the hyperbaric chambers located? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.36.175 ( talk) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
A photograph is in the article of a father and son "receiving treatment for autism". Is that not WP:undue weight? I'll await consensus before removing the image from the article. Wzrd1 ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely about HBOT, with snippets about therapeutic recompression, many of which just confuse the issue. Before I start trying to fix this, I would like a consensus from WP:WikiProject Medicine on what the article is actually intended to be about. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If true, could the lead confirm that Therapeutic recompression is done with normal air (N2+O2...), or what is used ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Fedorko L et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not reduce indications for amputation in patients with diabetes with nonhealing ulcers of the lower limb: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2016 Mar; 39:392. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2001) - See more at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SA2ovEwoAKUJ:www.jwatch.org/na40866/2016/03/24/hyperbaric-oxygen-not-effective-chronic-diabetic-foot+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.DnGyKzhS.dpuf Paywalled so I can't read it. Someone from Wikiproject:Medicine? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"no conclusion can be made with regard to number of amputations due to DFU". So HBOT doesn't seem to have any impact on amputation as a outcome (these would be severe cases) when treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), although HBOT does seem to contribute to regression of symptoms and improved healing of DFU in general. Does that help? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It is 9 years and more than 500 edits since last B-class check, so here we go again:
Could probably be brought up to scratch with a little work, so I will see what I can do to clear the citation deficiency. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It is seems that author has prejudice about hyperbaric medicine, at least one section is need to be reworked. Hyperbaric medicine is shown like it is a something fake, at least in the section about cancer, meanwhile science doesn't have exact opinion in this case. Moreover, for example, this article - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11523-012-0233-x (by the way, cited in the wiki article, in THIS section, but only with negative aspect) show quite another view. Hyperbaric medicine may be perspective adjuvant therapy to chimiotherapy and radiation therapy. Actually I am rather inclined to believe this large meticulous article than in small sloppy maked section in wiki. It is seems to be like the author more willingly show to us just dark side of the coin. Anyway, the hint on alternative medicine looks ridiculously. I didn't review scrupulosly other sections of article, but, if they were done like the section of cancer, whole article is need to be reworked. It is look like author states that hyperbaric medicine is something like placebo for everything except for treatment of decompression disease, don't research it, just focus on something more promicing. At least the article makes such an impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.13.29 ( talk) 12:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the previous version of the article before two changes by RyanSpringer.
The first edit was the addition of:
Another Therapeutic response of HBOT is the speed up of Angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). This is especially important in not only wound healing but also treating late effects of radiation. HBOT has been shown to speed up Angiogenesis through irradiated tissue to help heal and make the tissue more viable.
which may or may not be true, but was completely unsourced. WP:MEDRS requires all biomedical claims to be sourced to reliable secondary sources.
The second edit replaced a concise summary of a 2015 review with a wordy commentary on a 2009 review. Both reviews concluded that HBOT increased the rate of early healing of diabetic foot ulcers, but the later review contradicted the earlier's review's conclusion about major amputation rate. Our guidance at WP:MEDDATE is to prefer later reviews over earlier ones, and to prefer reviews less than about five years old to older ones. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@
Naftalig: I've reverted the addition of primary sources to contradict the conclusions of a secondary review. The article Efrati, Shai; Ben-Jacob, Eshel; Shlamkovitch, Nathan; Hoofien, Dan; Friedman, Mony; Bergan, Jacob; Volkov, Olga; Bechor, Yair; Fishlev, Gregori (2013-11-15).
"Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Can Improve Post Concussion Syndrome Years after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury - Randomized Prospective Trial". PLOS ONE. 8 (11): e79995.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0079995.
ISSN
1932-6203.
PMC
3829860.
PMID
24260334.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) is a trial and nothing more than a primary source in Wikipedia's terms. Our guidance at
WP:MEDRS specifically prohibits using primary sources for "debunking, contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources". --
RexxS (
talk) 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I strongly disagree that changes like this, where you remove information such as the authors' first names is an improvement to the article. I agree that citations should be consistent, but the article has used last, first for authors for the majority of the cases in the past and should not be degraded by attempting to switch to an inferior citation style simply as a matter of personal preference. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in cases where author first initials were there to begin with. The predominate style of authors if one goes back far enough was to use authors first name initials, and even very recently, at least half of the references used initials. So I am not sure that the precedence is clear cut. If you want to remove the |name-list-format=vanc
parameters, I will not object.
Boghog (
talk) 13:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)|name-list-format=vanc
. So now any first author full name that are present are now displayed.
Boghog (
talk) 13:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
|vauthors=
. And if one goes back far enough, the predominate style used first name initials. It seems overkill to use |first1=
, |last1=
, ... when only the first name initials are stored. |vauthors=
stores a comma delimited list of author names (no loss of granularity) and the first and last names are parsed by the template produce clean meta data. I am surprised to hear that |veditors=
doesn't produce clean meta data. I assumed it behaved like |vauthors=
.
Boghog (
talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC) (Looking at
Module:Citation/CS1, it appears that veditors is split apart just like vauthors)
Boghog (
talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)|vauthors=
has at least two advantages. The first is compactness (reducing the size of bloated cite templates) and the second is consistency (enforced with error checking by the template). There are few restriction on what can be stored in |first=
(initials with or without periods, first and middle initials separated or not separated by spaces, even gibberish such as "@#$%^&" is accepted ).
Boghog (
talk) 17:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)One of the citations (currently #68), Rosen's Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice (5th ed) -- has a link to an incomplete archived textbook that only goes until chapter 132. However it is cited for chapter 194 which is inaccessible. I looked through the available chapters and they lack the cited information.
If anyone has a recommendation on where I can find the complete textbook or the proper way to mark this invalid source let me know, I'm new to Wikipedia. 35drake ( talk) 16:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)