Cochrane · systematic review · CD013315

Interventions for preventing high altitude illness: Part 3. Miscellaneous and non‐pharmacological interventions

Molano Franco, D, Nieto Estrada, VH, Gonzalez Garay, AG, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library

Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 16.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 5.6%Low 14 · 77.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Summary of findings group 1: pre‐acclimatization and other measures based on pressure

Population: participants at risk of high altitude illness
4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Comparison: outcome
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Normal versus simulated altitude conditions: risk of AMS
RR 1.18 [0.82, 1.71]3 studies · 140 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) versus nothing: risk of AMS
OR 3.67 [1.38, 9.76]1 study · 8 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) versus placebo: risk of AMS
RR 3 [0.69, 13.12]1 study · 40 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision

Summary of findings group 2: supplements and vitamins

Population: participants at risk of high altitude illness
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Comparisons: outcome
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Antioxidants versus placebo: risk of AMS
RR 0.58 [0.32, 1.03]1 study · 18 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Ginkgo biloba versus placebo: risk of AMS
no estimate extracted6 studies · 504 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Erythropoietin versus placebo: risk of AMS
RR 0.41 [0.2, 0.84]1 study · 39 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Medroxyprogesterone versus placebo: risk of AMS
RR 0.71 [0.48, 1.05]2 studies · 32 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Iron supplementation versus placebo: risk of AMS
RR 0.65 [0.38, 1.11]2 studies · 65 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Rhodiola crenulata versus placebo: risk of AMS
OR 1 [0.78, 1.29]1 study · 125 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency

Summary of findings group 3: other comparisons

Population: participants at risk of high altitude illness
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Comparison: outcome
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Ginkgo biloba versus acetazolamide: risk of AMS
no estimate extracted3 studies · 378 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Acetazolamide + ginkgo biloba versus ginkgo biloba: risk of AMS
RR 0.43 [0.26, 0.71]1 study · 311 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Acetazolamide + ginkgo biloba versus acetazolamide: risk of AMS
RR 1.27 [0.65, 2.46]1 study · 306 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Acetazolamide versus medroxyprogesterone: risk of AMS
RR 1 [0.32, 3.1]1 study · 12 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Acetazolamide + medroxyprogesterone versus medroxyprogesterone: risk of AMS
RR 1.33 [0.5, 3.55]1 study · 12 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Acetazolamide + medroxyprogesterone versus acetazolamide: risk of AMS
RR 1.33 [0.5, 3.55]1 study · 12 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency