Eskes A - Revision history

M.bennett at 07:47, 17 August 2022

2022-08-17T07:47:44Z

M.bennett at 07:46, 17 August 2022

2022-08-17T07:46:04Z

M.bennett at 07:23, 18 August 2021

2021-08-18T07:23:33Z

M.bennett at 07:22, 18 August 2021

2021-08-18T07:22:34Z

M.bennett at 07:00, 12 November 2020

2020-11-12T07:00:11Z

M.bennett at 01:38, 28 December 2019

2019-12-28T01:38:37Z

M.bennett: Created page with "add content here"

2019-12-28T01:36:52Z

Created page with "add content here"

New page

add content here

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 &nbsp;
-<p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif|center|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p>
+<p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif|center|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p> <p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:xx-large;">[[Flaps_and_grafts|'''BACK''']]</span></p>
-= [[Flaps_and_grafts|<span style="font-size:xx-large;">'''BACK'''</span>]] =
+= &nbsp; =

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-= Little high quality evidence for the use of hyperbaric oxygen in acute wounds =
+= <span style="font-size:xx-large;">Little high quality evidence for the use of hyperbaric oxygen in acute wounds (meta-analysis of RCTs)</span> =
 '''Citation:&nbsp;'''Eskes&nbsp;&nbsp;A, Vermeulen&nbsp;&nbsp;H, Lucas&nbsp;&nbsp;C, Ubbink&nbsp;&nbsp;DT. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treating acute surgical and traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008059. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008059.pub3.
 '''Background'''
@@ Line 28: / Line 30: @@
 Four trials involving 229 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, which precluded a meta‐analysis.
-One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available). A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT. The fourth trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).
+*One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11).
+*A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available).
-Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review were not reported. All four trials were at unclear or high risk of bias.
+*A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT.
 '''Authors' conclusions'''

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 &nbsp;
 <p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif|center|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p>
+= [[Flaps_and_grafts|<span style="font-size:xx-large;">'''BACK'''</span>]] =

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 &nbsp;
 <p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif|center|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p>
 = '''[[Acute_ischaemia|BACK]]''' =

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma, these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.
 <p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif|center|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p>
 = '''[[Acute_ischaemia|BACK]]''' =

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 28 December 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~add content here~~	+
		+	= Little high quality evidence for the use of hyperbaric oxygen in acute wounds =
		+
		+	'''Citation: '''Eskes  A, Vermeulen  H, Lucas  C, Ubbink  DT. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treating acute surgical and traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008059. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008059.pub3.
		+
		+	'''Background'''
		+
		+	Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma). However, the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear.
		+
		+	'''Objectives'''
		+
		+	To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds.
		+
		+	'''Search methods'''
		+
		+	We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 5 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, August 08, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2013 Week 31); EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 8 August 2013).
		+
		+	'''Selection criteria'''
		+
		+	Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions such as dressings, steroids, or sham HOBT or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens.
		+
		+	'''Data collection and analysis'''
		+
		+	Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author.
		+
		+	'''Main results'''
		+
		+	Four trials involving 229 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, which precluded a meta‐analysis.
		+
		+	One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available). A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT. The fourth trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).
		+
		+	Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review were not reported. All four trials were at unclear or high risk of bias.
		+
		+	'''Authors' conclusions'''
		+
		+	There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma, these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.
		+	<p style="text-align: center;">[[File:Sumhorsa.gif\|center\|Sumhorsa.gif]]</p>
		+	= '''[[Acute_ischaemia\|BACK]]''' =