ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of a Breath-Indicating Device for Enhanced Respiratory Monitoring and Apnea Detection in Postoperative Care: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAccurate respiratory monitoring is crucial in post-anesthetic care settings due to increased risks of respiratory complications. This study evaluates the impact of a new breath-indicating device, ApnoLight (PEMDx Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), on medical staff's accuracy in recording respiratory rates and detecting apneic events, along with the device's acceptance among nurses.
methodsTwenty-five nurses from a hospital in Brisbane, Australia, participated. A simulated patient was fitted with the ApnoLight device on an oxygen mask. Nurses conducted six respiratory rate observations at varying distances (bedside, two meters, and five meters), both with and without the device. The patient's respiratory rates varied from eight to 25 breaths per minute. The accuracy of respiratory rate recordings and the time to identify apnea events were compared between simple observation and device-assisted observations.
resultsThe ApnoLight significantly reduced error rates in respiratory rate recordings: 27.58% at the bedside (P = 0.09, t = 1.31), 90.99% at two meters (P = 0.02, t = 1.98), and 96.37% at five meters (P = 0.0002, t = 4.02). The mean time to identify apnea decreased from 12.96 ± 9.12 seconds (simple observation) to 7.42 ± 2.19 seconds (with ApnoLight device). All apnea events were identified with the device, whereas four were undetected without it. Feedback showed that 96% (N = 24) of nurses found the device improved respiratory rate accuracy, and 100% (N = 25) found it made apnea identification easier.
conclusionsThe ApnoLight device has the potential to enhance respiratory rate monitoring accuracy and apnea detection in postoperative settings. Its implementation could improve patient safety and streamline clinical workflows.
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.