ArticlePediatric research2025
Experimental validation of a novel portable device integrating an oxygen concentrator and a ventilation module for patients with ALI/ARDS in low resource countries: a cross-over non-inferiority trial.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis non-inferiority, cross-over study aims to evaluate a novel proof-of-concept portable respiratory support device specifically designed for low-resource settings. The device integrates a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator.
methodsWe studied twelve 4-week-old piglets with a mean weight of 8.4 kg before and after oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In each condition, animals received 1-h pressure control ventilation using a conventional ventilator (Servo-i, Getinge, SE) and the experimental ventilator in random sequence. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed every half-hour to adjust the ventilator settings. The primary outcome was partial pressure of oxygen to FiO
resultsP/F did not differ significantly between the experimental and the control ventilation at baseline (459.6(30.9) vs 454.4(28.6) mmHg) and during ARDS condition (165.1(36.9) vs 182.5(48.4) mmHg). The upper 95% CI of the difference between P/F after ventilation using the control and the experimental ventilator was 37.3 and 44.1 mmHg during baseline and ARDS, respectively.
conclusionsThe experimental device was not inferior to a conventional ventilator during both baseline and ARDS conditions, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings. IMPACT STATEMENT: This manuscript provides the results of a non-inferiority study that compared a novel proof-of-concept respiratory support device, integrating a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator, specifically designed for respiratory support in low-resource settings, with a conventional pediatric intensive care ventilator in an oleic-acid model of acute lung injury. Our results showed that the experimental device was non-inferior to a conventional ventilator, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings. The developed solution can also be relevant for other applications, including home mechanical ventilation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39905142What 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.