Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31744499›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2019

Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison.

Dion C Martin

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dion C MartinResMed Science Center, ResMed Ltd, Elizabeth Macarthur Drive, Bella Vista, Sydney, Australia. Dion.Martin@resmed.com.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6503-6395
ResMed (Australia) · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCannulaComputer SimulationHumansLungModels, AnatomicOximetryOxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructivePulmonary VentilationRespiratory Physiological PhenomenaSleepOxygenChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT)Lung simulatorNasal cannulaNocturnal oxygen therapy (NOT)Oxygen-conserving technologyOxygen use efficiencyPortable oxygen concentrator (POC)Pulsed oxygen delivery

Identifiers

PMID31744499
PMCPMC6862795
OpenAlexW2990163428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.