ArticleCureus2024
Using a Portable Ventilatory Airway Screening (PVAS) Device to Evaluate the Difference Between Upper Airway Breathing Pressure and Respiratory Flow in Skeletal Class I and Class II Growing Individuals With Retrognathic Mandible.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Upper airway obstruction (UAO) is a significant clinical concern due to its potential to lead to serious health issues, including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular diseases. Traditional diagnostic methods, such as spirometry, are often invasive and complex. This study aims to validate a portable ventilatory airway screening (PVAS) device as a non-invasive, cost-effective alternative for measuring upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow. Objectives To validate the accuracy of the PVAS device in measuring upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow by comparing its readings with those obtained from standard spirometry tests. Methods This cross-sectional analytical study involved 40 growing individuals aged 10-14 years, divided into two groups based on cephalometric analysis: Skeletal Class I (20 patients) and Skeletal Class II with retrognathic mandible (20 patients). Breathing pressure, volume, and velocity measurements were recorded using both the PVAS device and spirometry, and their accuracy was compared. Results The PVAS device showed high concordance with spirometry results, demonstrating significant accuracy in measuring breathing pressure, volume, and velocity. Skeletal Class II individuals exhibited significantly higher breathing pressure and reduced respiratory flow compared to Class I individuals, as measured by the PVAS device. Conclusion The PVAS device is a valid and accurate tool for non-invasive measurement of upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow. Its ease of use and reliability make it a valuable tool for clinical practice, particularly in the early diagnosis and management of airway obstructions.
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.