ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017
Analysis and compensation for errors in electrical impedance tomography images and ventilation-related measures due to serial data collection.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The global inhomogeneity index assessed by electrical impedance tomography overestimates PEEP requirement in patients with ARDS: an observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Observational
- Article
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2017 end of year summary: respiration.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is increasingly being used as a bedside tool for monitoring regional lung ventilation. However, most clinical systems use serial data collection which, if uncorrected, results in image distortion, particularly at high breathing rates. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which this affects derived parameters. Raw EIT data were acquired with the GOE-MF II EIT device (CareFusion, Höchberg, Germany) at a scan rate of 13 images/s during both spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. Boundary data for periods of undisturbed tidal breathing were corrected for serial data collection errors using a Fourier based algorithm. Images were reconstructed for both the corrected and original data using the GREIT algorithm, and parameters describing the filling characteristics of the right and left lung derived on a breath by breath basis. Values from the original and corrected data were compared using paired t-tests. Of the 33 data sets, 23 showed significant differences in filling index for at least one region, 11 had significant differences in calculated tidal impedance change and 12 had significantly different filling fractions (p = 0.05). We conclude that serial collection errors should be corrected before image reconstruction to avoid clinically misleading results.
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.