ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Introducing a novel respiratory function monitor for neonatal resuscitation training.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of real-time respiratory function monitoring on neonatal mask ventilation training: a multicentre simulation-based crossover study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Trial
- Low-dose, high-frequency simulation with respiratory function monitor feedback enhances face mask ventilation across neonatal resuscitation devices: A prospective study in neonatology fellows.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Respiratory function monitors (RFMs) used for newborn resuscitation: accuracy and performance in the presence of leak. A bench comparison study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Confirmation of successful supraglottic airway device placement in neonates using a respiratory function monitor.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Monitoring respiratory mechanics as a training tool for manual ventilation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A respiratory function monitor (RFM) gives immediate feedback, allowing clinicians to adjust face mask ventilation to correct leak or inappropriate tidal volumes. We audited the satisfaction of clinicians with a neonatal resuscitation training package, incorporating a novel RFM. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study conducted at The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Clinicians were approached to complete a neonatal resuscitation training session. Participants watched a training video, then provided ventilation to term and preterm manikins first without, and then with, the RFM. Clinicians completed a survey after the session and undertook a follow-up session three months later. The primary outcome was participant satisfaction with the RFM. Secondary outcomes included participants' self-assessment of face mask leak and tidal volumes when using the RFM. Results: Fifty clinicians completed both the initial and follow-up session. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the RFM for both term and preterm manikins: on a scale from 0, meaning "not at all", and 100, meaning "yes, for all resuscitations", the median response (interquartile range, IQR) was 82 (74-94) vs 81.5 (69-94.5). Levels of satisfaction were similar for less experienced and more experienced clinicians: median (IQR) 83 (77-93) vs 81 (71.5-95) respectively. When using the monitor, clinicians accurately self-assessed that they achieved leak below 30% and tidal volumes within the target range at least 80% of the time. Conclusion: Clinicians of all experience levels had a high level of satisfaction with a training package including a novel RFM.
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.