ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2023
Technical validation of the EMMA capnometer under hyperbaric conditions.
Article in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the EMMA capnograph with sidestream capnography and arterial carbon dioxide pressure at 284 kPa.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnd-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO
methodsStage 1. The EMMA mainstream capnometer was tested at 101 kPa against a reference side-stream capnometer, Philips IntelliVue M3015B microstream, using 10 customised reference gases of various carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations (2.47%-8.09%, or 18.5-60.7 mmHg at 101 kPa) in either air or oxygen. Stage 2. The functionality and accuracy of the EMMA capnometer was tested under hyperbaric conditions, 121-281 kPa, using the same test gases.
resultsAt 101 kPa, the EMMA capnometer measured CO₂ at levels lower than expected (mean of differences = -2.5 mmHg (95% CI -2.1 to -2.9, P < 0.001)). The Philips capnometer measured CO₂ more closely to expected CO₂ (mean of differences = -1.1 mmHg (95% CI -0.69 to -1.4, P < 0.001). Both devices demonstrated a significant linear relationship with expected CO₂. The EMMA capnometer functioned up to the maximum test pressure (281 kPa). The device over-read CO₂ measurements at pressures > 141 kPa. Although variance increased at pressures in the therapeutic range for hyperbaric treatments, a significant linear relationship between expected and EMMA measured CO₂ was demonstrated. The EMMA capnometer tolerated pressures to 281 kPa, but its display was limited to CO₂ < 99 mmHg.
conclusionsThis study validated EMMA capnometer function to 281 kPa in the hyperbaric environment. The device over-read CO₂ measurements at pressures >141 kPa, however there was a linear relationship between expected and measured CO₂. The EMMA capnometer may be clinically useful for monitoring expired CO₂ in patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen treatment.
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.