- Page 1 and 2:
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy November
- Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary.........
- Page 5 and 6:
Tables Table 1 Measures of disease
- Page 7 and 8:
Table 45 Functional neurologic scor
- Page 9 and 10:
Figures Figure 1. Outline of search
- Page 11 and 12:
Effectiveness Published guidelines
- Page 13 and 14:
evidence that exposure to HBO may b
- Page 15 and 16:
No available evidence No evidence w
- Page 17 and 18:
Introduction The Medicare Services
- Page 19 and 20:
Multiplace chambers can accommodate
- Page 21 and 22:
Marketing status of the device The
- Page 23 and 24:
Table 3 1998 - 1999 self-reported d
- Page 25 and 26:
Table 6 retrieval. Indication-speci
- Page 27 and 28:
Phase of Search Initial Search Ful
- Page 29 and 30:
Conduct of meta-analysis When the d
- Page 31 and 32:
early as 1995. The guidelines - kno
- Page 33 and 34:
Table 10 Minimum staff qualificatio
- Page 35 and 36:
Is it effective? The review assesse
- Page 37 and 38:
Table 14 Patient criteria of includ
- Page 39 and 40:
offered ample details. The remainin
- Page 41 and 42:
characteristics compared to the tre
- Page 43 and 44:
Assessment of heterogeneity All the
- Page 45 and 46:
Odds ratio 10 1 0.1 0.01 A sensitiv
- Page 47 and 48:
Wound healing Two of the five ident
- Page 49 and 50:
Studies of necrotising soft tissue
- Page 51 and 52:
Summary Table 25 Survival in patien
- Page 53 and 54:
Table 29 Therapeutic protocols used
- Page 55 and 56:
Osteomyelitis The study by Esterhai
- Page 57 and 58:
Summary The HBO group showed a stat
- Page 59 and 60:
Summary These results are difficult
- Page 61 and 62:
outcomes or that decreased the risk
- Page 63 and 64:
Anderson et al 80 recruited non-pre
- Page 65 and 66:
Summary The collected evidence exam
- Page 67 and 68:
Table 46 Major outcomes following t
- Page 69 and 70:
Table 50 Therapeutic protocols used
- Page 71 and 72:
Table 53 Patient criteria of includ
- Page 73 and 74:
Thirty-seven subjects (comparison g
- Page 75 and 76:
whose hearing loss was not secondar
- Page 77 and 78:
tinnitus (6 versus 3 subjects). Non
- Page 79 and 80:
assume that all participants knew o
- Page 81 and 82:
Table 64 Therapeutic protocols used
- Page 83 and 84:
Table 65 Descriptive characteristic
- Page 85 and 86: Table 68 Therapeutic protocols used
- Page 87 and 88: These contrasted with the conclusio
- Page 89 and 90: Table 73 Patient criteria of includ
- Page 91 and 92: Summary There are conflicting resul
- Page 93 and 94: Summary separate and previously-stu
- Page 95 and 96: need to insulate patients from outs
- Page 97 and 98: Reactive effects A reactive effect
- Page 99 and 100: Cost of major amputation The hospit
- Page 101 and 102: Sensitivity analysis Table 79 shows
- Page 103 and 104: Table 80 Estimation of incremental
- Page 105 and 106: Sensitivity analysis Table 83 shows
- Page 107 and 108: Conclusions Safety Potential risks
- Page 109 and 110: Recommendations MSAC recommended th
- Page 111 and 112: Appendix B Supporting committee Sup
- Page 113 and 114: Appendix C Studies included in this
- Page 115 and 116: Necrotising soft tissue infections:
- Page 117 and 118: Soft tissue injuries: crush injurie
- Page 119 and 120: Cancer: cervix First Author and Yea
- Page 121 and 122: Appendix D Studies excluded in this
- Page 123 and 124: 2. Shandling AH, Ellestad MH, Hart
- Page 125 and 126: 5. Woo TCS, Joseph D, Oxer H. Hyper
- Page 127 and 128: 22. Kunkler PB, Boulis-Wassif S, Sh
- Page 129 and 130: 45. Wiernik G, Perrins D. The radio
- Page 131 and 132: Appendix E Calculation of monoplace
- Page 133 and 134: Hence, the total operating costs of
- Page 135: Appendix G Reviews received from ot
- Page 139 and 140: References 1. Hampson N. Hyperbaric
- Page 141 and 142: 31. L'Abbe K, Detsky A, O'Rourke K.
- Page 143 and 144: 61. Perrins DJ. Influence of hyperb
- Page 145 and 146: 89. DiSabato F, Giacovazzo M, Crist
- Page 147: 117.Plenk HP. Hyperbaric radiation