Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
University College London Centre for Altitude Space and Extreme Environment Medicine, UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Sport and Exercise Health, 170 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7HA UK ; Integrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Mailpoint 810, Sir Henry Wellcome Laboratories, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD UK ; Anaesthesia and Critical Care Research Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Mailpoint 27, D Level, Centre Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD UK ; NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Southampton, SO16 5ST UK.
Published: February 2015
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Much hypoxia research has been carried out at high altitude in a hypobaric hypoxia (HH) environment. Many research teams seek to replicate high-altitude conditions at lower altitudes in either hypobaric hypoxic conditions or normobaric hypoxic (NH) laboratories. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that the only relevant condition that differs between these settings is the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2), which is commonly presumed to be the principal physiological stimulus to adaptation at high altitude. This systematic review is the first to present an overview of the current available literature regarding crossover studies relating to the different effects of HH and NH on human physiology. After applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Several studies reported a number of variables (e.g. minute ventilation and NO levels) that were different between the two conditions, lending support to the notion that true physiological difference is indeed present. However, the presence of confounding factors such as time spent in hypoxia, temperature, and humidity, and the limited statistical power due to small sample sizes, limit the conclusions that can be drawn from these findings. Standardisation of the study methods and reporting may aid interpretation of future studies and thereby improve the quality of data in this area. This is important to improve the quality of data that is used for improving the understanding of hypoxia tolerance, both at altitude and in the clinical setting.
