Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Case Report: Buccal administration of hydrogen-producing blend after a mild traumatic brain injury in a professional athlete

Javorac D, Stajer V, Ostojic SM. · 2019.

HumanOther formsPublished 2019
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Single-patient case report

Research topic

Other neurological conditions

Administration classification

Other forms

Study result signal

Indeterminate for molecular hydrogen.

Outcome type

Clinical observations and functional tests in one patient.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

A 24-year-old professional athlete after mild traumatic brain injury.

Sample

1 patient.

Duration

Intensive treatment during the first 24 hours with short follow-up.

Intervention

Repeated buccal administration of a hydrogen-producing blend after injury.

Hydrogen form

Oral transmucosal H₂-generating preparation.

H₂ specification

Article-specific product and administration schedule; systemic hydrogen dose was not measured.

H₂ flow

Not applicable.

O₂ delivered with H₂

No oxygen was co-delivered.

Comparator

No control; clinical course after treatment.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Symptoms, cognitive or balance testing and recovery observations.

Reported result

The case describes improvement in symptoms and test performance after treatment, but no causal comparison is possible.

Results-extraction completeness

The full article was checked for methods, intervention details, outcomes, positive and null findings, funding and conflicts. This record does not imply medical efficacy.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Single uncontrolled case, spontaneous recovery and concurrent concussion care prevent attribution to the product.

Applies directly to

This individual case only.

Preliminary appraisal framework

JBI case-report checklist — preliminary

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Critical concerns

Appraisal rationale

No comparator, one participant and high susceptibility to regression, co-intervention and selective reporting.

Appraisal domains

Selection and allocation checked · Confounding and co-interventions remain possible · Missing observations checked where reported · Outcome measurement varies by endpoint · Selective reporting cannot be excluded

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 32595937 · DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19739.1

Publisher access

A free full article is available through PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Official PubMed Central full article and PubMed bibliographic record; source identity, methods, intervention, results, funding and conflicts checked 10 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10