ArticleScience progress
The in-vitro performance of invasive mechanical ventilators in lung model.
Article in Science progress. 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
ObjectiveTo evaluate the technical performance and patient-ventilator synchronization of different invasive mechanical ventilators.MethodsSix ventilators were tested using the ASL5000 active lung simulator. Ventilators were categorized by air supply type: central (Dräger V600, Maquet Servo-u, Mindray SV800) and turbine-based (Savina 300, SV300, Resvent RS300). The measured parameters included tidal volume (VT), plateau pressure (Pplat), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), peak pressure (Ppeak), time to reach 90% of inspiratory pressure (T (90%)), triggering delay (DT), and leak compensation. Ventilators were evaluated in volume assist-control (V-A/C), pressure assist-control (P-A/C), and pressure support ventilation (PSV) modes under acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) conditions using ASL5000™ lung simulator, with or without intentional leak (4.4 L/min). For each ventilator under these different conditions, we analyzed pressurization accuracy, VT accuracy, inspiratory muscle effort, and response efficiency.ResultsThe pressurization accuracy of ventilators with central air supply did not differ significantly from that of turbine-driven ventilators during V-A/C and P-A/C ventilation, irrespective of spontaneous breathing or air leakage. The mean absolute errors of target VT were 8.9% (V600), 10.3% (Servo-U), 14.4% (SV800), 4.6% (Savina300), 18.8% (SV300), and 19.9% (RS300), and ventilators with central air supply generally have better VT accuracy, except for Savina300 (
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.