ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance Evaluation of a Low-Cost Non-Invasive Ventilator during the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Bench Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 breakout, a global call for low-cost portable ventilators was made following the strong demand for ventilatory support techniques. Among a few development projects, COVIDair non-invasive ventilator was developed and produced in a record time during the critical period of spring 2020.
objectivesTo evaluate COVIDair performance (i.e., inspiratory trigger delay time, TDT, pressurization time and inspiratory to expiratory time ratio, I:E) on a test bench simulating physiological characteristics of breathing.
methodPerformance tests were conducted on a breathing simulator (ASL 5000, IngMar Medical™) in two different lung mechanics (i.e., normal and severe restrictive).
resultsUnder normal pulmonary mechanics, the inspiratory TDT is on average between 89.0 (±2.1) and 135.0 (±9.7) ms. In a situation of severe restrictive pulmonary mechanics, the inspiratory TDT is on average between 80 (±3.1) and 99.2 (±5.5) ms. Pressurization time to pre-set inspiratory pressure was on average from 234.6 (±5.5) to 318.6 (±1.9) ms. The absolute difference between the actual I:E cycling measure and the pre-set I:E cycling value ranged from 0.1 to 10.7% on average.
conclusionIn normal and severe restrictive pulmonary mechanics scenarios, the performance of COVIDair meets the expected standards for non-invasive ventilators.
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.