ArticlePediatric pulmonology2025
Comparative Analysis of Analog and Digital Chest Tube Drainage Systems Using a High-Fidelity 3D-Printed Neonatal Chest Model.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, digital chest tube drainage systems have been introduced. Limited studies address their benefits and risks in pediatric patients, particularly neonates. This study compares a three-chamber chest drainage system with a digital system using a high-fidelity 3D-printed model.
methodsWe conducted direct measurements and 3D-printed model tests with both systems at different suction pressures (-1 to -20 cmH
resultsAt -20 and -10 cmH
conclusionThis experimental study evaluates the suitability of digital drainage systems for the pediatric and neonatal populations. Our model demonstrated reliable simulation of thoracic conditions, making it a useful tool for pre-clinical testing where patient testing may be limited. Both systems yielded satisfactory results at -20 and -10 cmH
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.