ArticleRespiratory care2024
Improving Breath Detection From Pulsed-Flow Oxygen Sources Using a New Nasal Interface.
Article in Respiratory care, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Oxygen Conservation Technology, With Appreciation for Brian L Tiep MD.Respiratory care · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with COPD and other lung diseases are treated with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). Portable oxygen sources are required to administer LTOT while maintaining patient autonomy. Existing portable oxygen equipment has limitations that can hinder patient mobility. A novel nasal interface is presented in this study, aiming to enhance breath detection and triggering efficiency of portable pulsed-flow oxygen devices, thereby improving patient mobility and independence.
methodTo examine the effectiveness of the new interface, 8 respiratory therapists participated in trials using different oxygen sources (tank with oxygen-conserving device, SimplyGo Mini portable oxygen concentrator [POC], and OxyGo NEXT POC) and breathing types (nasal and oral) while using either the new nasal interface or a standard cannula. Each trial was video recorded so participant breaths could be retroactively matched with a pulse/no-pulse response, and triggering success rates were calculated by dividing the number of oxygen pulses by the number of breaths in each trial. After each trial, volunteers were asked to rate their perceived breathing resistance.
resultsNasal breathing consistently resulted in higher triggering success rates compared to oral breathing for pulsed-flow oxygen devices. POCs exhibited higher triggering success rates than did the oxygen tanks with conserving device. However, there were no significant differences in triggering success rates between the two POC models. The new nasal interface demonstrated improved triggering success rates compared to the standard cannula. Whereas the new nasal interface was associated with a slight increase in perceived breathing resistance during nasal breathing trials, participants reported manageable resistance levels when using the interface.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the new nasal interface can improve triggering success rates of pulsed-flow oxygen devices during both nasal and oral breathing scenarios. Further research involving patient trials is recommended to understand the clinical implications of improved pulse triggering.
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.