ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2022
Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 2022. 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, 2 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation.
methodsNew Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O
resultsAll rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO
conclusionsAlthough conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation.
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.