ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
A Better Standard to Assess the Performance of Portable Suction Devices: Time-Averaged Air Flow Rate.
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. 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.
- The SCEPTRE Suction Device: Bridging Portability and Performance in Combat Medicine.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPortable suction devices are important tools in airway management, yet evaluating their performance and adherence to standards presents challenges. This study explores the inadequacies of ISO 10079-1 and proposes a shift from instantaneous maximum air flow rate metric to time-averaged air flow rate metric for more accurate assessment. The focus is on the importance of effective suction in prehospital care, especially in scenarios like combat and civilian emergencies.
methodsFour portable suction devices (AMBU RES-QUE, LAERDAL VVAC, LAERDAL LCSU4, and SSCOR QUICKDRAW) were tested for air flow rate, liquid flow rate, and vacuum pressure. The study introduced the concept of time-averaged air flow rate as a more relevant metric than instantaneous maximum air flow rate. Statistical analyses, including Pearson correlation and regression methods, were employed to evaluate the relationship between instantaneous maximum and time-averaged air flow rates and their impact on liquid flow rate.
resultsThe AMBU RES-QUE showed 15.7 ± 0.4 L/min instantaneous and 2.3 ± 0.1 L/min time-averaged air flow rate; VVAC had 29.1 ± 5.4 L/min instantaneous and 6.0 ± 1.1 L/min time averaged; LCSU4, 21.8 ± 0.2 L/min instantaneous and 19.8 ± 0.4 L/min time averaged; and SSCOR QUICKDRAW, 11.3 ± 0.1 L/min instantaneous and 10.3 ± 0.1 L/min time-averaged. Water liquid flow rates (L/min) were 2.1 ± 0.1 (AMBU), 2.9 ± 0.2 (VVAC), 7.0 ± 0.1 (LCSU4), and 5.4 ± 0.0 (SSCOR); with ISO vomit simulant, they were 2.0 ± 0.3, 2.1 ± 0.4, 3.1 ± 0.4, and 2.2 ± 0.0, respectively. Time-averaged air flow rate correlated strongly with liquid flow rate (r = 0.97, R DISCUSSION: The findings challenge the common reliance on instantaneous maximum air flow rate as a performance indicator. Instantaneous maximum air flow rate may mislead users about a device's effectiveness, especially in long-term applications. Time-averaged air flow rate shows improved prediction of liquid flow rate. The study also identifies backflow issues in a manual suction device, emphasizing potential risks and the need for further exploration.
conclusionThe study advocates for a shift in standards, proposing the inclusion of time-averaged air flow rate in ISO requirements. This change aligns with the patient-centric focus, providing a more accurate representation of a device's performance in real-world scenarios. Additionally, the identification of backflow in manual devices raises concerns, urging further investigation into its clinical significance and potential risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40634625What 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.