Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24531893›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2014

Accuracy of a disposable compared to a non-disposable infant T-piece resuscitator.

Vera B Krabbe, Jeroen J van Vonderen, Charles C Roehr, Arjan B Te Pas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vera B KrabbeDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, J6-S, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jeroen J van Vonderen
Charles C Roehr
Arjan B Te Pas
Leiden University Medical Center · NLMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledBoth disposable and non-disposable T-piece resuscitator (TPR) devices are used. Accuracy of the disposable and non-disposable infant TPR was compared. Peak inspiratory pressures (PIP) and positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) were measured during ventilation of a test lung. Measured PIP ±1 cmH2O and PEEP ±0.5 cmH2O of the desired pressures were considered acceptable. We tested the following: (A) Accuracy of setting pressures using built-in manometers of three disposable TPRs, (B) Minimal and maximal PIP and PEEP levels for the non-disposable and disposable TPR were measured using different gas flow rates, and (C) Accuracy of 25 caregivers setting pressures (PIP 25 cmH2O and PEEP 5 cmH2O). The results of the tests performed were as follows: (A) With pressures set: PIP 20, 25, 30, and 40 cmH2O and PEEP 5-8 cmH2O with 1 cmH2O stepwise increment, measured PIPs and PEEPs were in acceptable range. (B) At gas flow rates 5, 8, 10, and 15 L/min (disposable vs. non-disposable), min-max PIP were 4.0-43.2 vs. 2.9-77.1 cmH2O and min-max PEEP were 0.3-22.3 and 0.6-59.7 cmH2O. (C) Set PIP (cmH2O) by participants using disposable vs. non-disposable TPR was 25.8 (0.8) vs. 25.9 (1.3) (ns). PEEP was 5.4(0.5) vs. 4.7(0.5); p < 0.001.

conclusionThe accuracy of the disposable TPR is comparable to that of the non-disposable TPR.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignHumansInfantLungManometryNetherlandsPositive-Pressure RespirationRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Function Tests

Identifiers

PMID24531893
OpenAlexW2023733335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.