ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2021
Thorpe tube and oxygen flow restrictor: what's flow accuracy?
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxygen gas flowmeters (OGF) are used to regulate the oxygen flow in acute and chronic care. In hospitals, Thorpe tubes (TT) are the classical systems most used for delivering oxygen. In recent years, the oxygen flow restrictor (OFR) has appeared. These devices use a series of calibrated openings in a disk that can be adjusted to deliver different flow rates. These devices have a reputation for delivering more accurate oxygen flow rates compared to classical OGFs. However, to our knowledge, few study has examined this supposition. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the accuracy and precision of the ready-to-use TTs and OFRs. OGFs were selected from hospitals in Belgium and France. Before performing the flow measurements, the inlet pressure was checked. The accuracy of the OGF was analyzed with a calibrated thermal mass flowmeter (RED Y COMPACT™ GCM-0 to 20 L/min-VÖGTLIN Instruments). Different flows (2, 4, 6, 9 or 12 L/min) were evaluated. Linear regression analysis, bias (with confidence interval) and lower and upper limit of the agreement were calculated for TTs and OFRs. All measurements are expressed in absolute values. Four-hundred-seventy-six TTs and 96 OFRs were analyzed. The intra-class correlation coefficient calculated for the calibrated thermal mass flowmeter was > 0.99 and reflected the excellent reliability of our measurements. For TTs, the bias value was - 0.24 L/min (± 0.88), and the limits of agreement were - 1.97 to 1.48 L/min. For OFRs, the bias value was - 0.30 L/min (± 0.54), and the limits of agreement were - 1.36 to 0.77 L/min. As the flow increased, the accuracy of all analyzed OGFs decreased. With the increasing flow, some data fell outside the limits of agreement, and the trend increased with the elevated oxygen flow. TTs were less accurate compared to OFRs due to the increased flow variability. However, for TTs and OFRs, as the required flow is elevated, the dispersion of values increases on both sides of the actual flow.
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.