Trial reportBMJ paediatrics open2024
Characterising applied forces during positive pressure ventilation: a randomised cross-over simulation study.
Trial report in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship between applied face mask force and mask leak during simulated neonatal ventilation: a randomised simulation study.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2025Trial
- High Fidelity Simulations to Improve Pediatric Airway Management: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Corrective steps during neonatal mask ventilation - a narrative review of the evidence behind the MR SOPA acronym.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise applied force on the face and head during simulated mask ventilation with varying mask, device and expertise level.
designRandomised cross-over simulation study.
settingA quiet, empty room in the children's hospital.
participantsNeonatal healthcare providers, categorised as novices and experts in positive pressure ventilation (PPV).
interventionsPPV for 2 min each in a 2×2 within-subjects design with two masks (round and anatomic) and two ventilation devices (T-piece and self-inflating bag (SIB)).
main outcome measuresApplied force (Newton (N)) measured under the head and at four locations on the manikin's face (nasal bridge, mentum, left and right zygomatic arches) and symmetry of force applied around the mask rim.
resultsFor the 51 participants, force applied to the head was greater with the SIB than the T-piece (mean (SD): 16.03 (6.96) N vs 14.31 (5.16) N) and greater with the anatomic mask than the round mask (mean (SD): 16.07 (6.80) N vs 14.26 (5.35) N). Underhead force decreased over the duration of PPV for all conditions. Force measured on the face was greatest at the left zygomatic arch (median (IQR): 0.97 (0.70-1.43) N) and least at the mentum (median (IQR): 0.44 (0.28-0.61) N). Overall, experts applied more equal force around the mask rim compared with novices (median (IQR): 0.46 (0.26-0.79) N vs 0.65 (0.24-1.18) N, p<0.001).
conclusionWe characterised an initial dataset of applied forces on the face and head during simulated PPV and described differences in force when considering mask type, device type and expertise.
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.