ArticlePloS one2016
Reliability of Single-Use PEEP-Valves Attached to Self-Inflating Bags during Manual Ventilation of Neonates--An In Vitro Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive Expiratory Pressure Oxygen Therapy for Respiratory Distress: A Single-arm Feasibility Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- [Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
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 at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInternational resuscitation guidelines suggest to use positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during manual ventilation of neonates. Aim of our study was to test the reliability of self-inflating bags (SIB) with single-use PEEP valves regarding PEEP delivery and the effect of different peak inflation pressures (PIP) and ventilation rates (VR) on the delivered PEEP.
methodsTen new single-use PEEP valves from 5 manufacturers were tested by ventilating an intubated 1 kg neonatal manikin containing a lung model with a SIB that was actuated by an electromechanical plunger device. Standard settings: PIP 20 cmH2O, VR 60/min, flow 8 L/min. PEEP settings of 5 and 10 cmH2O were studied. A second test was conducted with settings of PIP 40 cmH2O and VR 40/min. The delivered PEEP was measured by a respiratory function monitor (CO2SMO+).
resultsValves from one manufacturer delivered no relevant PEEP and were excluded. The remaining valves showed a continuous decay of the delivered pressure during expiration. The median (25th and 75th percentile) delivered PEEP with standard settings was 3.4(2.7-3.8) cmH2O when set to 5 cmH2O and 6.1(4.9-7.1) cmH2O when set to 10 cmH2O. Increasing the PIP from 20 to 40 cmH2O led to a median (25th and 75th percentile) decrease in PEEP to 2.3(1.8-2.7) cmH2O and 4.3(3.2-4.8) cmH2O; changing VR from 60 to 40/min led to a PEEP decrease to 2.8(2.1-3.3) cmH2O and 5.0(3.5-6.2) cmH2O for both PEEP settings.
conclusionSingle-use PEEP valves do not reliably deliver the set PEEP. PIP and VR have an effect on the delivered PEEP. Operators should be aware of these limitations when manually ventilating neonates.
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.