ArticleRespiratory care2023
Comparison of Four Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices: Effect of Simulated Airway Collapse on Cough Peak Flow.
Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung electrical impedance tomography during positioning, weaning and chest physiotherapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Waves of Precision: A Practical Guide for Reviewing New Tools to Evaluate Mechanical In-Exsufflation Efficacy in Neuromuscular Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Response to Discussion on "Comparison of Four Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices: Effect of Simulated Airway Collapse on Cough Peak Flow".Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Discussion on Comparison of Four Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices: Effect of Simulated Airway Collapse on Cough Peak Flow.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Cough Peak Flow Assessment: Is There More to the Story?Respiratory care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) devices are used to improve airway clearance in individuals with acute respiratory failure. Some MI-E devices measure cough peak flow (CPF) during MI-E to optimize pressure adjustments. The aim was to compare CPF and effective cough volume (ECV: volume expired/coughed > 3 L/s) measurements between 4 MI-E devices under simulated conditions of stable versus collapsed airway.
methodsFour MI-E devices were tested on the bench. Each device was connected via a standard circuit to a collapsible tube placed in an airtight chamber that was attached to a lung model with adjustable compliance and resistance. Pressure was measured upstream and downstream the collapsing tube; air flow was measured between the chamber and the lung model. Each device was tested in 2 conditions: collapse condition (0 cm H
resultsCPF values measured at the tracheal level and ECV values differed between devices for each inspiratory/expiratory pressure in the collapse and no-collapse conditions (
conclusionsCPF values differed significantly across MI-E devices, highlighting limitation(s) of using only CPF values to determine cough effectiveness. In simulated of airway collapse, CPF increased at the mouth, whereas it decreased at the tracheal level.
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.