ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Comparison of two respiratory function monitors for newborn mask ventilation: A randomised crossover study using simulation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Respiratory function monitors (RFMs) used for newborn resuscitation: accuracy and performance in the presence of leak. A bench comparison study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Monitoring respiratory mechanics as a training tool for manual ventilation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
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
Objectives: Respiratory function monitors (RFM) provide objective feedback on respiratory parameters during face mask ventilation. While traditional RFMs display detailed waveforms, newer devices use simplified, colour-coded graphics. We aimed to compare three RFM feedback methods against a no-feedback approach, assessing ventilation parameters and user interpretation. Methods: This simulation-based, crossover randomised study involved healthcare professionals at a tertiary neonatal centre, who received training on two RFMs: a "Coloured graphic" device (Monivent NeoTraining), offering monitor and sensor light feedback, and a "Flow curves" device (Respironics NM3). Participants performed positive pressure ventilation on a manikin across three phases: access to the "Coloured graphic" monitor and sensor light, "Light only", and access to the "Flow curves" monitor, evaluated against a control phase with no feedback. An interpretation assessment followed. The primary outcome was the median difference in mask leak (%) between the control and the three intervention phases. Results: Data from 51 participants were analysed. Compared to the control, the median (IQR) mask leak (%) was significantly lower in the "Coloured graphic" phase (11% [7%-26%]; median difference: -13 [95% CI: -26 to -2]). No significant differences were observed in the "Light only" phase (22% [8%-39%]); median difference: -10 [95% CI: -25 to 5]), or "Flow curves" phase (44% [6%-73%]; median difference: 8 [95% CI: -2 to 18]). Although more participants correctly interpreted the "Coloured graphic" feedback, only a minority selected appropriate corrective actions. Conclusions: Objective feedback from the "Coloured graphic" RFM significantly reduced leak during mask ventilation.
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.