Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37496578›Full record

ArticleOpen respiratory archives

Implementation of a Comprehensive Testing Protocol for a Rapidly Manufactured Mechanical Ventilator.

Szabolcs Baglyas, Luca Valko, V Anna Gyarmathy, Michelle LaPradd, Janos Gal, Andras Lorx

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open respiratory archives. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Szabolcs BaglyasDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Luca ValkoDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
V Anna GyarmathyEpiConsult LLC, Dover, DE, USA.
Michelle LaPraddMS Pi-Squared LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Janos GalDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Andras LorxDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Semmelweis University · HUJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that surges in critical care demand can overwhelm existing healthcare infrastructures, most evident in the acute shortage of mechanical ventilators across the globe. Despite efforts to encourage urgent authorization of newly developed emergency ventilators, the currently available testing protocols are not internationally accepted, standardized and none address testing in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compile and perform a comprehensive clinical testing protocol for a newly developed emergency ventilator. Methods: Using previously available guidance, we compiled a sequential testing protocol with a: 1. preclinical, 2. safety testing, 3. clinician usability test and 4. clinical stage involving respiratory failure patients. The protocol was then tested on the Luca ventilator, a mechanical ventilator capable of sophisticated ventilator settings rapidly developed specifically in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: During the pre-clinical/safety stages, the ventilator produced pressure and volume changes deemed acceptable by the Rapidly Manufactured Ventilator System guideline. Furthermore, our protocol allowed the identification of a number of issues that were easily resolved with minor software adjustments. Usability was excellent (overall System Usability Scale score = 90.5). Clinical testing revealed that a sampling frame of 15 critically ill patients was sufficiently powered to detect any significant, clinically relevant differences between the Luca ventilator and a standard ICU ventilator. Conclusions: The ventilator was accurate, reliable, safe, and user-friendly. The implementation of a comprehensive, standardized pre-clinical/clinical testing protocol is feasible, potentially enabling the safe and timely emergency authorization of rapidly developed mechanical ventilators crucial in pandemic situations.

Indexed as

Clinical testingCOVID-19Emergency ventilatorMechanical ventilatorRapid assessmentUrgent authorization

Identifiers

PMID37496578
PMCPMC9212985
OpenAlexW4282943063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.