ICU mechanical ventilators, technological advances vs. user friendliness: the right picture is worth a thousand numbers.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A New Full-Face Mask for Multifunctional Non-Invasive Ventilation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
   Review
2. A new global and comprehensive model for ICU ventilator performances evaluation.Annals of intensive care · 2017
   Article
3. The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience.Critical care (London, England) · 2016
   Article
4. A Critical Review of Mechanical Ventilation Virtual Simulators: Is It Time to Use Them?JMIR medical education · 2016
   Article
5. Healthcare Technology Management (HTM) of mechanical ventilators by clinical engineers.Journal of intensive care · 2014
   Article
6. Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2009. Part III: mechanical ventilation, acute lung injury and respiratory distress syndrome, pediatrics, ethics, and miscellanea.Intensive care medicine · 2010
   Review
7. The usability of ventilator maintenance user interface: A comparative evaluation of user task performance, workload, and user experience.Science progress
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Evaluation of the user-friendliness of seven new generation intensive care ventilators.2009

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as