Talk:Hyperbaric medicine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section? 

message: Please explain why this might be effective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.32.110 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Why Does It Work? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mechanism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest Defining "Hyperbaric" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  4.1 PSI 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Practicing Physicians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting page that was somewhat messed up 

message: 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)
replies: text: As there is now a combined article for diving chambers/Hyperbaric chambers I have put in a link to that and I suggest this article in future emphasise the particular features used in or adapted for HBOT.Rexparry sydney 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate hyperbaric chamber from HBOT 

message: Hyberbaric medicine seems like a much better name.  Any objections? User:Hopping T  19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reworks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, of course, but remember to cite reliable sources: some of the refs in Oxygen toxicity may be suitable. It would be worth mentioning the relatively small increase in total oxygen transported normally, since hemoblogin can carry far more oxygen than plasma - but this is particularly relevant when hemoglobin levels are compromised, such as in carbon monoxide poisoning. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HBOT

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neuro Rehab section: Only positive results of research are listed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  why does it say that it can heal cancer? 

message: No mention is made specifically about ORN of the mandible.
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ORN

message: 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)
replies: text: I would support doing just that. Although the Cochrane review has its detractors, an encyclopedia is better built on good secondary sources such as reviews, rather than the results of individual trials. The balance you suggest would seem to me to meet WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS section 

message: Here is an image of a TCOM machine for determining if a patient with diabetic foot ulcers is suitable for HBOT tx.
thumb--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TCOMs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Difference between 80 and 100 percent oxygen 

message: Against a B-class checklist, the article has some shortcomings:
# B-Class-1: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. - Fail
#: Section "Therapeutic principles" needs more references
#: Section " Structure" and its sub-sections need a lot more references
#: Section " Treatments" needs references
# B-Class-2: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. - Pass
#: Could be expanded (e.g. ORN as suggested above), but major points covered
# B-Class-3: It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. - Fail
#: Lead requires considerable expansion
#: Structure needs improvement (perhaps as suggested above)
# B-Class-4: It is free from major grammatical errors. - Pass
# B-Class-5: It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. - Pass
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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Quality Scale 

message: gave the following source:
* 
It may be helpful for expanding the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-traumatic stress disorder 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Efficacy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Global perspective 

message: 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)
replies: text: But the oxygen it uses makes carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide has to be breathed out. --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can read more about carbon dioxide poisoning in this article. --Gautehuus (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: breathe out?

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear about your wife's illness and I wish you both all the best. None of us here are the best people to ask for medical advice, but I can offer you a Google Scholar search http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=hyperbaric+oxygen+therapy+alzheimer%27s+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart that is likely to turn up most of the academic studies relevant to your question. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperbaric Treatment for Alzheimer Sufferers 

message: 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)
replies: text: As there have been no objections, I was bold and removed the image that gives WP:undue weight to fringe autism "treatment" theories that have only poor studies backing said approach.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of father and son in chamber 

message: 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)
replies: text:  might be best to name Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (exclude therapeutic recompression for a separate article)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since much of the environment and function are the same for both HBOT and TR, I wouldn't suggest separate articles unless the prose size exceeded the 32K readable text that is normally suggested as a trigger for a split. It has never made sense to me to keep splitting articles into smaller and smaller sub-topics, each duplicative of much of the content of the other. I am also opposed to having an article titled Hyperbaric oxygen therapy as it acts as a magnet for the addition of fringe uses, which are so far away from mainstream evidence that they do not deserve mention (see WP:FRINGE). It's bad enough already that we have to spend half the article saying "there is no evidence that HBOT is effective in treating X, Y and Z". If the article is short of content for TR, the solution is surely to add the content. This isn't a big article and any expansion that wasn't simply refutation of crank theories would be a welcome addition. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: in regards to attracting WP FRINGE,via the title, you might have a point( would not be a good idea)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperbaric medicine = HBOT ''and'' Therapeutic recompression 

message: It is 9 years and more than 500 edits since last B-class check, so here we go again:
# B-Class-1: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. - currently 18 "citation needed" tags
#: Section " Treatments" still needs references, and has a few dubious looking statements
# B-Class-2: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. - Pass
#: Could be expanded (e.g. ORN as suggested above), but major points covered
# B-Class-3: It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. - Pass
#: Lead OK
#: Structure looks OK.
# B-Class-4: It is free from major grammatical errors. - Pass
# B-Class-5: It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. - Pass
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)
thread_title:  Revisit of quality 

message: I've restored the previous version of the article before two changes by .
The first edit was the addition of:  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)
thread_title:  Wound healing 

message: I've reverted the addition of primary sources to contradict the conclusions of a secondary review. The article  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)
thread_title:  Use of primary sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete textbook cited 

message: The lead currently says (paragraph 6, sentence 2): .  13.8 kPa = 138 hPa which is about 1/7th of 1013.15 hPa = 1 atm = 1 bar. I don't see that in ref [7], nor in the abstract of ref [6]. More importantly for the flow of the text, I don't see how a hypobaric (if that's a word) pressure makes sense in this context. Obviously, low pressure is a problem too (e.g. a vacuum), but this is a non sequitur. It pops up suddenly and I don't see how a very low pressure makes sense as a summary of the dangers of hyperbaric medicine. Boud (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear summary of the dangers of hyperbaric medicine in the lead