ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Evaluation of aerosol generation and cooling effects of evaporative plus convective cooling in heat stroke treatment: A simulation study.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to experimentally verify the safety and effectiveness of evaporative plus convective cooling used in heat stroke treatment using a doll simulating a patient with heat stroke. Methods: Evaporative plus convective cooling was simulated by blowing air through a fan (speed: approximately 1.0 or 2.5 m/s) and using normal (20°C) or slightly warm (40°C) water on a doll whose surface body temperature was set at 40°C. We measured the change in surface body temperature using a surface heater attached to the back of the doll's chest cover and observed aerosol generation (size: ≥5 μm) using a particulate visualization system. Three particle counters were placed to measure the generated particles that were not captured by the particulate visualization system. Results: The cooling effect of the 2.5 m/s wind speed was greater than that of the 1.0 m/s wind speed. No particles >0.5 μm were observed, and no aerosol particles were generated. Conclusions: Our results thus suggested that wind force has a significant effect, and there was no risk of aerosol-related viral infection in evaporative plus convective cooling. However, this does not rule out the risk of droplet infection.
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.