ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Manikin-based noninferiority simulation study of Airgency™: A novel automatic bag valve mask device for emergency respiratory support.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the performance of Airgency™, an automated bag valve mask (BVM) ventilation device developed by Institut Teknologi Bandung and Padjadjaran University, Indonesia, using a manikin-based simulation model. Its performance was compared with conventional hand-squeezed bagvalvemask ventilation performed by medical professionals, with a focus on reducing operator-dependent variability and fatigue.
methodsA manikin-based simulation was conducted using an adult airway trainer connected to a lung simulator (ASL5000) set to mimic apneic respiratory failure with normal lung mechanics. The Ambu bag, connected to 15 L/min oxygen, was secured to the manikin. Airgency™ operated in normal mode (tidal volume [VT] 400 mL, 15 bpm) for 30 min, repeated 50 times. Seventy-eight anesthesiology residents performed manual BVM ventilation under identical conditions after standardized training. Breathing rate (BR), VT, and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were recorded every minute, whereas fatigue was rated using the Visual Analog Scale for Fatigue (VAS-F, 1-10).
resultsAirgency™ demonstrated superior ventilation stability. BR remained consistent (14.77 ± 0.08 vs. 16.54 ± 7.05 bpm;
conclusionAirgency™ maintained consistent, precise ventilation with minimal variability and eliminated operator fatigue, supporting its potential as a reliable alternative to manual BVM ventilation in emergency care.
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.