ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2019
Precision medicine is coming to town: personalising home ventilatory equipment in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bench evaluation of six non-invasive ventilation home ventilators: comparison with an ICU ventilator and unsupervised clustering.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure and non-invasive ventilation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.BMJ medicine · 2022Review
- Using Telemedicine to Monitor the Patient with Chronic Respiratory Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discharging a chronic critically ill patient is a risky procedure if the clinician does not have full control of his prescription. This is even more important when applying a machine to replace a failing organ, as is the case for home ventilation. Even if modern home ventilators fulfil quality and safety criteria and, 'on paper', ventilators and masks look very similar, performance and scenarios of applicability are not always equivalent. In the case of ventilators, the type of circuit, accessories provided and available modes vary between devices. Bench studies comparing ventilators have shown large differences in triggering, rise time, pressurisation capacities, maximal flow provided, cycling and level of authorised expiratory positive airway pressure. Automated algorithms to deal with leaks also vary and have not been sufficiently evaluated. In the case of interfaces, the choice of mask requires careful evaluation of the underlying disease and of the type of ventilator and circuit, which could have a potentially major impact on patient compliance and clinical effectiveness. This could explain different results in the same clinical situation. The choice of ventilator and type of mask represents a medical prescription and should be respected by the provider and not subject to financial constraints.
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.