ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Field-Ready Suction Solutions for Emergencies: The Battlefield Ready Innovative Suction Kit (BRISK).
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Enhancing military airway suction devices with a focus on performance and portability.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPortable suction devices are crucial for emergency airway management. Commercially-available units are unsuitable for field use due to size and power needs. A light-weight and multi-orientation operable portable suction device, Battlefield Ready Innovative Suction Kit (BRISK) was developed. The design was informed by feedback from combat medics, paramedics, and EMTs.
methodsEnd-user engagement and feedback defined BRISK's design. The fabricated prototype used a vacuum pump and hydrophobic syringe filters. Performance tests measured vacuum pressure, air and liquid (water and ISO vomit simulant) flow rates, volume of water suctioned in different orientations (upright, tilted, or inverted), and contamination prevention between BRISK, SSCOR Quickdraw, and Laerdal LCSU4.
resultsThe BRISK device-weighing 0.97 kg-demonstrated a maximum vacuum pressure of 570 ± 6 mmHg and an air flowrate of 5.20 L/min. Liquid flow rates (L/min) for BRISK, LCSU4, and SSCOR with water were 4.92 ± 0.2, 6.97 ± 0.1, and 5.37 ± 0.1, respectively. With ISO vomit simulant, the rates were 3.23 ± 0.2, 3.06 ± 0.4, and 2.23 ± 0.1. BRISK showed consistent performance across orientations (p = 0.081), while LCSU4 and SSCOR varied significantly (p < 0.0001). The BRISK's cross-contamination between filters and the pump was 0.01%, which is far less than the rated contamination level of 0.1% as described by ISO 10079-1.
conclusionBRISK is 30% lighter and achieves competitive vacuum pressures and liquid flow rates than comparable units currently in the market. It ensures effective evacuation of liquids in all orientations: upright, tilted, or inverted. These results demonstrate the BRISK has the potential to provide superior clinical performance in pre-hospital and first response scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40153195What 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.