ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
A novel visual sputum suctioning system is useful for endotracheal suctioning in a dog model.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 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.
- Novel Visual Nasogastric Tube Insertion System: A Feasibility and Efficiency Study in a Manikin.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study is to test the effectiveness of fiber-optic-guided endotracheal suction catheter (visual sputum suctioning system or VSSS) in dog models.
methodsDog sputum models were established by administering dimethoate emulsifiable. Twenty-seven intubated dogs were equally randomized into three groups of conventional suctioning (CS) group, VSSS with no supplemental oxygen (VSSS) group and VSSS with 100% oxygen (VSSS/O2) group. The suctioning efficiency, vital signs and tracheal wall injury were assessed.
resultsThe VSSS/O2 (8.6 ± 0.7g) and VSSS groups (8.5 ± 0.9 g) collected significantly more sputum than the CS group (5.9 ± 0.8 g) (P < 0.05 for VSSS/O2 group versus CS group; P < 0.05 for VSSS group versus CS group). Immediately after suctioning, the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2 ) of VSSS/O2 group was significantly higher than that of the VSSS group or the CS group (both P < 0.05), and 5 min after suction the PaO2 , the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) in all groups returned to the baseline (p = 0.54, P = 0.67, P = 0.11, respectively). Moreover, in the VSSS/O2 and VSSS groups all the three variables were higher than the CS group at 5 min after suctioning (P < 0.01, P = 0.03; P = 0.02, P < 0.01; P = 0.02, P = 0.01 respectively).
conclusionsVisual sputum suctioning system collected more sputum and caused less tracheal mucosa damage than conventional suctioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25663978PMC4307425What 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.