ArticlePhysiological measurement2018
Comparison of flow and gas washout characteristics between pressure control and high-frequency percussive ventilation using a test lung.
Article in Physiological measurement, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Mechanical Ventilation vs. High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Article
- High-frequency percussive ventilation in acute respiratory failure.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- On some factors determining the pressure drop across tracheal tubes during high-frequency percussive ventilation: a flow-independent model.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA comparison between flow and gas washout data for high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) and pressure control ventilation (PCV) under similar conditions is currently not available. This bench study aims to compare and describe the flow and gas washout behavior of HFPV and PCV in a newly designed experimental setup and establish a framework for future clinical and animal studies. APPROACH: We studied gas washout behavior using a newly designed experimental setup that is motivated by the multi-breath nitrogen washout measurements. In this procedure, a test lung was filled with nitrogen gas before it was connected to a ventilator. Pressure, volume, and oxygen concentrations were recorded under different compliance and resistance conditions. PCV was compared with two settings of HFPV, namely, HFPV-High and HFPV-Low, to simulate the different variations in its clinical application. In the HFPV-Low mode, the peak pressures and drive pressures of HFPV and PCV are matched, whereas in the HFPV-High mode, the mean airway pressures (MAP) are matched. MAIN
resultsHFPV-Low mode delivers smaller tidal volume (V SIGNIFICANCE: Various flow parameters for HFPV and PCV are mathematically defined. A shorter washout time at a small V
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.