ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2014
Accuracy of a disposable compared to a non-disposable infant T-piece resuscitator.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.