ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2019
Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a portable, lightweight modular system to deliver high inspired oxygen to trauma casualties without the use of pressurised cylinders.BMJ military health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels in a Model of Respiratory Failure.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
- 2023 Year in Review: Home Oxygen Therapy.Respiratory care · 2024Review
- Improving Breath Detection From Pulsed-Flow Oxygen Sources Using a New Nasal Interface.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Recent trends in the nanozeolites-based oxygen concentrators and their application in respiratory disorders.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecades of clinical research into pulsed oxygen delivery has shown variable efficacy between users, and across a user's behaviours (sleep, rest, activity). Modern portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have been shown as effective as other oxygen delivery devices in many circumstances. However, there are concerns that they are not effective during sleep when the breathing is shallow, and at very high respiratory rates as during physical exertion. It can be challenging to examine the determinants of POC efficacy clinically due to the heterogeneity of lung function within oxygen users, the diversity of user behaviour, and measurement issues. Representative bench testing may help identify key determinants of pulsed-oxygen device efficacy.
methodsThree contemporary devices were bench-evaluated across three simulated breathing behaviours: activity, rest, & oronasal breathing during sleep. Emphasis was placed on breathing patterns representative of oxygen users.
resultsAll three POCs performed well during simulated breathing during exertion and at rest. Differences in triggering ability were noted for the scenario of oronasal breathing during sleep.
conclusionsThe results are supportive of contemporary POC triggering abilities. The differences shown in ultimate trigger sensitivity may have relevance to oronasal breathing during sleep or other challenging scenarios for pulsed oxygen delivery, such as dominant mouth breathing during exertion or unfavourable nasal geometry.
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.