ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Evaluation of accuracy, filter performance, and durability among capnography sampling lines: a bench study.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this bench study was to assess performance between currently available sidestream capnography sampling lines claiming compatibility with a Microstream™ enabled monitor system. A series of bench tests were performed on a selection of commercially available sampling lines (oral-nasal cannulas, PetCO2 masks, and procedural bite blocks) to assess PetCO2 accuracy, filter performance and mechanical durability. For each testing procedure, three separate sampling lines were assessed for five repetitions (n = 15 for each product). A 3D printed oral-nasal model connected to a lung simulator was set to two different breathing modes to simulate “normal” and “shallow” breathing. PetCO2 accuracy measurements were completed at both breathing modes to simulate a variety of clinical scenarios, including oxygen delivery. Filter performance and mechanical durability were assessed for cannula sampling lines. When evaluating PetCO2 accuracy across all sampling line types and breathing conditions, error estimates were lowest for matched-paired sampling lines, compared to cross-paired sampling lines. For oral-nasal cannulas, the matched-paired and three cross-paired performed within the system specification for “normal” breathing conditions. Split design oral-nasal cannulas consistently fell outside specifications under conditions of nasal obstruction. Five cross-paired filters clogged prior to expected threshold, with four demonstrating a clog capacity of less than half the expected value. Almost all sampling lines passed mechanical durability testing. Across all testing conditions, cross-paired sampling lines were observed to fall outside system specifications, suggesting that using sampling lines outside the Microstream™ family may disrupt accuracy of readings when using a Microstream™ enabled capnography monitor.
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.