ArticlePediatric pulmonology2012
Nasal versus oronasal raised volume forced expirations in infants--a real physiologic challenge.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Raised volume rapid thoracoabdominal compression (RTC) generates forced expiration (FE) in infants typically from an airway opening pressure of 30 cm H(2)O (V(30)). We hypothesized that the higher nasal than pulmonary airway resistance limits forced expiratory flows (FEF(%)) during (nasal) FE(n), which an opened mouth, (oronasal) FE(o), would resolve. Measurements were performed during a brief post-hyperventilation apnea on 12 healthy infants aged 6.9-104 weeks. In two infants, forced expiratory (FEFV) flow volume (FV) curves were generated using a facemask that covered the nose and a closed mouth, then again with a larger mask with the mouth opened. In other infants (n = 10), the mouth closed spontaneously during FE. Oronasal passive expiration from V(30) generated either the inspiratory capacity (IC) or by activating RTC before end-expiration, the slow vital capacity ((j) SVC). Peak flow (PF), FEF(25), FEF(50), FEF(25-75), FEV(0.4), and FEV(0.5) were lower via FE(n) than FE(o) (P < 0.05), but the ratio of expired volume at PF and forced vital capacity (FVC) as percent was higher (P < 0.05). FEF(75), FEF(85), FEF(90), FVC as well as the applied jacket pressures were not different (P > 0.05). FEFV curves generated via FE(o) exhibited higher PF than FV curves of IC (P < 0.05); PF of those produced via FE(n) were not different from FV curves of IC (P > 0.05) but lower than those of (j) SVC (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the higher nasal than pulmonary airways resistance unequivocally affects the FEFV curves by consistently reducing PF and decreases mid-expiratory flows. A monitored slightly opened mouth and a gentle anterior jaw thrust are physiologically integral for raised volume RTC in order to maximize the oral and minimize nasal airways contribution to FE so that flow limitation would be in the pulmonary not nasal airways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.