Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270660›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

In vitro comparison of performance including imposed work of breathing of CPAP systems used in low-resource settings.

Megan Heenan, Jose D Rojas, Z Maria Oden, Rebecca Richards-Kortum

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Megan HeenanRice 360°: Institute for Global Health, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Jose D RojasDepartment of Respiratory Care, School of Health Professions, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.
Z Maria OdenRice 360°: Institute for Global Health, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Rebecca Richards-KortumRice 360°: Institute for Global Health, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2347-9467

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory distress due to preterm birth is a significant cause of death in low-resource settings. The introduction of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems to treat respiratory distress significantly reduced mortality in high-resource settings, but CPAP was only recently introduced in low-resource settings due to cost and infrastructure limitations. We evaluated pressure stability and imposed work of breathing (iWOB) of five CPAP systems used in low resource settings: the Fisher and Paykel bubble CPAP, the Diamedica baby CPAP, the Medijet nCPAP generator, and the first (2015) and second (2017) generation commercially available Pumani CPAPs. Pressure changes due to fresh gas flow were evaluated for each system by examining the relationship between flow and pressure at the patient interface for four pressures generated at the bottle (0, 3, 5, and 7 cm H2O); for the Medijet nCPAP generator, no bottle was used. The slope of the resulting relationship was used to calculate system resistance. Poiseuille's law of resistance was used to investigate significant contributors to resistance. Resistance ranged from 0.05 to 1.40 [Formula: see text]; three CPAP devices had resistances < 0.4 [Formula: see text]: the Fisher and Paykel system, the Diamedica system, and the second generation Pumani bubble CPAP. The other two systems, the Medijet nCPAP generator and the first generation Pumani bCPAP, had resistances >1.0 [Formula: see text]. Imposed WOB was measured using an ASL5000 test lung to simulate the breath cycle for an infant (5.5 kg), a term neonate (4.0 kg), and a preterm neonate (2.5 kg). Imposed WOB ranged from 1.4 to 39.5 mJ/breath across all systems and simulated infant sizes. Changes in pressure generated by fresh gas flow, resistance, and iWOB differ between the five systems evaluated under ideal laboratory conditions. The available literature does not indicate that these differences affect clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Continuous Positive Airway PressureHealth ResourcesWork of BreathingGasesHumansPressureRheologyGases

Identifiers

PMID33270660
PMCPMC7714113

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.