ArticleAcute and critical care2022
Agreement between two methods for assessment of maximal inspiratory pressure in patients weaning from mechanical ventilation.
Article in Acute and critical care, 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, 1 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory muscle strength in patients with an artificial airway is commonly assessed as the maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and is measured using analogue or digital manometers. Recently, new electronic loading devices have been proposed to measure respiratory muscle strength. This study evaluates the agreement between the MIPs measured by a digital manometer and those according to an electronic loading device in patients being weaned from mechanical ventilation.
methodsIn this prospective study, the standard MIP was obtained using a protocol adapted from Marini, in which repetitive inspiratory efforts were performed against an occluded airway with a one-way valve and were recorded with a digital manometer for 40 seconds (MIPDM). The MIP measured using the electronic loading device (MIPELD) was obtained from repetitively tapered flow resistive inspirations sustained for at least 2 seconds during a 40-second test. The agreement between the results was verified by a Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsA total of 39 subjects (17 men, 55.4±17.7 years) was enrolled. Although a strong correlation between MIPDM and MIPELD (R=0.73, P<0.001) was observed, the Bland-Altman analysis showed a high bias of -47.4 (standard deviation, 22.3 cm H2O; 95% confidence interval, -54.7 to -40.2 cm H2O).
conclusionsThe protocol of repetitively tapering flow resistive inspirations to measure the MIP with the electronic loading device is not in agreement with the standard protocol using one-way valve inspiratory occlusion when applied in poorly cooperative patients being weaned from mechanical 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.