Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Hydrogen/oxygen mixed gas inhalation improves disease severity and dyspnea in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 in a recent multicenter, open-label clinical trial

Guan WJ, Wei CH, Chen AL, Sun XC, Guo GY, Zou X, Shi JD, Lai PZ, Zheng ZG, Zhong NS. · Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2020;12(6):3448.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2020
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

Multicentre open-label nonrandomized concurrent-control study

Research topic

Respiratory health

Administration classification

Inhaled H₂

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and dyspnea at enrollment during the early 2020 outbreak in China.

Sample

90 analyzed participants: H₂/O₂ n=44 and standard care with oxygen n=46, selected after screening 633 records.

Duration

Until discharge; median total H₂/O₂ exposure 64 hours and median 7.7 hours/day, versus 24 hours/day conventional oxygen in controls.

Intervention

H₂/O₂ inhalation by nasal cannula daily until discharge in addition to standard care.

Hydrogen form

Brown's gas / oxyhydrogen; the article reports rounded composition of 66% H₂ and 33% O₂, consistent with an approximately 2:1 mixture.

H₂ specification

Total flow was 6 L/min. Based on the intended 2:1 Brown's-gas ratio, component flows are approximately 4,000 mL/min H₂ and 2,000 mL/min O₂; the printed 66%/33% values are rounded and sum to 99%.

H₂ flow

Approximately 4,000 mL/min, calculated from the reported 2:1 mixture at 6 L/min.

O₂ delivered with H₂

Approximately 2,000 mL/min, calculated from the reported 2:1 mixture at 6 L/min.

Comparator

Standard care with conventional oxygen therapy; allocation was chosen by attending clinicians, not randomized.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Five-category disease severity, dyspnea, cough, chest distress, chest pain, resting oxygen saturation and adverse events at days 2, 3 and end of treatment.

Reported result

More H₂/O₂ participants improved on the disease-severity scale at days 2 and 3 and end of treatment, with improvements in several symptoms and oxygen saturation. No serious adverse events were reported. The treatment and comparator differed substantially in daily gas-exposure duration.

Results-extraction completeness

The complete free PMC article and supplement-linked methods were checked for clinician-directed allocation, gas composition/flow, exposure duration, outcomes, adverse events, commercial device provision, funding and conflicts.

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

Methods explicitly state there was no randomization, despite the article calling the work a trial and the discussion calling it randomized; open-label clinician assignment creates major selection/confounding risk. Small selected sample, no propensity matching, unequal exposure time, early-pandemic supportive-care variability and outcomes mostly symptom scales. Shanghai Asclepius provided the generator; funding was reported as none, one author was the journal's unpaid editor-in-chief and other authors declared no conflicts.

Applies directly to

Early-pandemic hospitalized COVID-19 patients with dyspnea; it does not establish benefit against current variants, vaccination-era care or mortality.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

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: 32642277 · DOI: 10.21037/jtd-2020-057

Publisher access

Free full article in PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Complete PMC article, supplement-linked study details and PubMed metadata; full-text extraction checked 9 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10