ArticlePulmonary therapy2024
Patient Use Patterns of Portable Oxygen Concentrators.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPortable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that provide supplemental oxygen to patients requiring long-term oxygen therapy. However, little information is available on day-to-day patterns of how or even whether patients actively switch between their POC mobility features and flow setting options.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted to assess POC usage among patients who used an Inogen One G5 POC in the USA. This study aimed (1) to describe the patterns of use of POCs, (2) to analyze their compatibility with the prescribed oxygen therapy settings, and (3) to demonstrate the contribution of POC usage to get a standardized long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). Data were directly downloaded from the devices returned for service or at the end of the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment rental period and streamed via a mobile application from 2018 to 2022. Daily usage, disconnections from the device, use of prescribed pulse delivery settings, breaths per minute, power sources, and movement with the POC were assessed. Device alert histories were also examined.
resultsData revealed a mean daily usage of 4.29 ± 3.23 h/day, ranging from 0.35 to 15.52 h/day. The prescribed pulse delivery setting was used by 31.34% of patients for at least 80% of their POC use time. When the POC was on battery power, patients were moving/mobile 41.99 ± 33.33% of the time. On the basis of the device-generated alerts, some patients continued to use their POC very close to or even beyond the lifetime of the column/sieve bed. Alerts or alarms potentially requiring repair occurred at a rate of 1.63 events per 100 years of use, indicating that device reliability did not significantly influence the use patterns.
conclusionPatients used their POCs when mobile and at rest. A large proportion of patients adjust their POC settings during the day, which potentially indicates the need for the dynamic individualization of oxygen dose delivery to match activities of daily living or sleep. Patients require follow-up to ensure timely replacement of POC columns.
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.