ArticleTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Exploration of quality criteria for the detection of peak inspiratory flow under different resistance conditions.
Article in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, robust quality criteria and methods for the assessment of Peak inspiratory flow meter performance are lacking.
objectiveA standard flow-volume simulator for quality control analyses of an inhalation assessment device was utilized with different simulated resistance levels in order to propose a quality testing method and associated standard for this device type.
methodsA standard flow-volume simulator was utilized to assess the performance of an In-Check DIAL® (Device I) and an intelligent inhalation assessment device (Device P) at a fixed volume and flow rate. Indices used to evaluate these two instruments included repeatability, accuracy, linearity, and impedance.
resultsBoth devices exhibited good repeatability (<± 3 L/min). The difference between test results and standard simulator values for Device P was less than ± 5 L/min at resistance level R1 but higher than ± 5 L/min at resistance levels R2-5, while Device I were greater than 5 L/min at all resistance levels. The relative error for Device P was <± 10% at resistance levels R1, R2, and R4, but > 10% at resistance levels R3 and R5. The relative error values for Device I at all five resistance levels were > 10%. Device P passed the linearity test at the R2 resistance level, while Device I partially passed the linearity test at all five resistance levels.
conclusionStandard monitoring methods and standards provide a valuable approach to the more reliable clinical assessment and application of these instruments.
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.