Center For Autism And Related Disorders Study Finds Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Ineffective Treatment For Children With Autism
Main Category: AutismAlso Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 11 Nov 2009 - 2:00 PDT
email to a friend
printer friendly
opinions'Center For Autism And Related Disorders Study Finds Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Ineffective Treatment For Children With Autism'
| Patient / Public: |  |
2.36 (14 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: |  |
2.73 (11 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 6 posts |
Research conducted by the Center for Autism and Related Disorders, Inc. (CARD), shines new light on the effects of a popular form of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) treatment for children with autism and related disorders. The "Randomized Trial of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Children with Autism" study reveals that HBOT, consisting of 24% oxygen delivered at 1.3 atmospheres of pressure, does not have a significant effect on symptoms of autism. This study was led by Doreen Granpeesheh, PhD, BCBA-D; Jonathan Tarbox, PhD, BCBA-D; Dennis R. Dixon, PhD; Arthur E. Wilke; Michael S. Allen, PsyD; and James Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, MD (H), FAAFP. It is published in the current issue of Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) are characterized by the presence of impaired development in social interaction and communication and the presence of a restricted repertoire of activity and interests. While numerous treatments for ASDs have been proposed, very few have been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation.
HBOT has been recently popularized as a treatment for the symptoms of ASDs. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that HBOT would have a beneficial effect on ASD symptoms in the context of a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
This randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial compared HBOT used to deliver 24% oxygen at 1.3 atmospheric pressure (n = 18) to placebo (n = 16) in children with Autistic Disorder. Both direct observational measures of behaviors symptomatic of autism and standardized psychological assessments were used to evaluate the effects of the treatment.
CARD researchers found no differences between HBOT and placebo groups across any of the outcome measures. The present study demonstrates that HBOT delivered at 24% oxygen at 1.3 atmospheric pressure does not result in a clinically significant improvement in the symptoms of Autistic Disorder.
In addition, CARD maintains a reputation as one of the world's largest and most experienced organizations effectively treating children with autism, Asperger's Syndrome, PDD-NOS, and related disorders. Following the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), CARD develops individualized treatment plans for children worldwide
Source: Center for Autism and Related Disorders, Inc
Visit our autism section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
25 May. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/170521.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/170521.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
Questionable study
posted by Rachel A Scott, MD on 30 Mar 2012 at 1:41 amThis study has some faults that make me question why the researchers bothered to do it. If you want to know whether 1.3 ATM is effective, try using it with 100 percent oxygen, as 24 percent oxygen is only 3 percent higher than room air. Secondly, the test lacks validity without a larger population--statistically at least 30 test subjects are required for an adequate sample. This study is a failure to adequately use researchers' and subjects' time and money, more than anything else. I would like to know whether the portable 1.3 ATM chambers are worthwhile--it would be great news for many people who can't afford to be treated in expensive chambers, and to travel long distances to receive HBOT at higher ATM levels. I have my own doubts about whether 1.3 ATM is sufficient pressure to be effective for treatment of a variety of problems, but this study doesn't answer that very important question; no one wants to see an investment of tens of thousands of dollars for chambers if the results are not going to justify the cost, but your study doesn't tell me anything new. It raises more questions about the bias of the investigators than anything else--was this a study that was designed to fail? It gives that appearance; or worse, suggests a lack of knowledge about hyperbaric oxygen and its mechanisms of action, and generally raises more questions about the research and the competence of the researchers, in my mind, I'm sorry to say. I just can't find anything positive about this study from its design, to the statistical sample, or any other parameter which should be the hallmark of scientific research. It just muddies the water.
HBOT sworks when used effectively
posted by Jeff on 14 Jul 2011 at 4:46 amThis study is worthless due to the fact that ambient air was used. Had they pressurized to at least 1.5ata and offered 95% - 100% medical grade oxygen, the results would have resulted in more positives. IT's this kind of study that raises the question the source of the funding.
I agree about the struggle --
posted by Robert on 12 Mar 2011 at 6:13 pmChris, I cannot help but agree with you on this. Our Healing Chambers International Centers either give children HBOT for free (our San Diego Center alone spent over $200,000.00 of hard cash on kids) or charge about the same for the sham treatmentsof "bag" chambers. It is the "practitioners" (often time "DAN" certified) that should be ashamed every time they charge $70.00 per bag Tx, knowing that the little person would get the same amount of molecular oxygen at a fraction of the cost if they Rx. home O2 via a mask. I admire your determination, but let's not waste really important days of a child's development with fads.
I disagree
posted by Chris on 28 Dec 2010 at 7:05 amI have had the opportunity to volunteer at a non profit hyperbaric center that uses only mild HBOT with an oxygen concentrator.
With my own eyes I have witnessed mhbot help many children. Would the kids be better off in a hospital grade chamber? Perhaps, but the cost is prohibitive to most people if not all.
To say that it is useless, and that struggling families should only come to you and pay $200 an hour is shameless self promotion. Help comes in many forms and its irresponsible of you to denigrate the work of others.
Autism
posted by Amy Forrester on 30 Nov 2010 at 4:05 pmRobert I couldn't agree more. I too offer my thanks to organizations such as CARD that offer up honest research. Especially when dealing with fragile children and families that must deal with autism and it's affects. Cheers to you CARD, a pioneer and honest company in my book.
HYPE Or Hyperbarics
posted by Robert L. Sands on 12 Nov 2009 at 3:22 pmThe article is a triumph of truth yet fails to inform the public in one important aspect: accuracy . . . it does not differentiate between hospital grade HBOT or the so called mild HBOT that is administered in air-bag inflatible chambers.
Sadly, the hype on the mHBOT chambers always included data from "hard" chambers and implies each are one and the same. They are not. The money-bag (for their practitioners) chambers are about as sophisticated as a coffee table. The hospital grade hard chambers are like a Bell-Jet Ranger helicopter. If you want your child to take the trip to normalization, sitting him on a coffee table will not get him out of the room.
I speak with authority, education and experience. My first chamber patent in 1982 was for an inflatable chamber and funded by the Australian Commonwealth Department of Science and Technology. We abandoned that bag because the pressures, even with 100% oxygen, had no therapeutic value.
Thanks for proving up what I always publicly propounded as truth: The worthless bags waste the little patient's most valuable resource -- time -- and consumes the desperate caregiver's dollars (but enrich practitioners that should know better.)
Sincerely and with deep respect to the honest researchers.
Robert L. (Bob) Sands
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'Center For Autism And Related Disorders Study Finds Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Ineffective Treatment For Children With Autism'Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
