ArticlePulmonary therapy2026
Comparison of Three Devices Preventing Skin Damage During Facial Mask Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol (3PROSNIVtrial).
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01351155 (Comparison of Three Devices to Prevent Skin Damage Induced by Facial Mask Ventilation During Acute Respiratory Failure), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Three Devices to Prevent Skin Damage Induced by Facial Mask Ventilation During Acute Respiratory Failure: a Multicenter Randomised Controlled Study
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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV), pressure-related skin injury is among the most frequent and clinically relevant complications. The reported prevalence of device-related pressure injuries is estimated at around 25%, while reported incidences of NIV-related facial pressure ulcers range from approximately 10-31%. These lesions, mainly localized over the nasal bridge, arise because the skin in this area is thin and supported by minimal subcutaneous tissue, making it highly vulnerable to ischemic and frictional forces exerted by the mask interface. In severe cases, skin breakdown may lead to pain, infection, or discontinuation of NIV, thereby compromising ventilatory support. The most commonly adopted preventive strategy involves the application of shaped hydrocolloid dressings; however, evidence regarding their actual effectiveness and the potential benefits of alternative protective devices remains limited.
objectivesThe primary aim of this study is to compare skin injury-free survival in ARF patients receiving NIV treated with three different CE-marked protective systems. Secondary objectives include assessing device stability and protective performance, patient comfort, pain intensity, mask tolerance, timing and staging of skin lesions, cost-effectiveness, predictive factors for skin injury, and overall NIV success.
methodsThis is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial involving 14 Italian pulmonology intensive care units and 1 Spanish Intensive Care Unit. Eligible patients with hypoxemic or mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic ARF requiring NIV for more than 24 h will be randomly assigned to one of four study arms (three intervention groups and one control group). Each group will receive a different protective device-Tegaderm PLANNED OUTCOMES: The trial will provide comparative evidence on the efficacy of different protective dressings in preventing NIV-related facial skin injury, thereby supporting the development of evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.
trial registrationNCT01351155.
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.