↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of efficacy of three devices of manual positive pressure ventilation: a mannequin-based study

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of efficacy of three devices of manual positive pressure ventilation: a mannequin-based study
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13052-015-0131-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Somashekhar M Nimbalkar, Suman Rao PN, Saudamini V Nesargi, Ashish R Dongara, Swarnarekha Bhat

Abstract

We compared the efficacy of and consistency in manual ventilation by trained healthcare professionals using three devices: self-inflating bag, flow-inflating bag, and T-piece resuscitator. Prospective analytical study at a level III Neonatal unit of a tertiary care hospital. Forty participants (consultants, postgraduates, interns, and neonatal nurses - 10 each) manually ventilated a mannequin with the above three devices for three minutes each. This procedure was video recorded. The pressure delivered during the three minutes and the breath rates for the first minute, second minute, and third minute were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study population and group statistics were used for various parameters of interest. Factorial analysis of variance was conducted to determine the main effects of device and specialty of users. The mean (SD) peak inspiratory pressure of T-piece resuscitator was 16.5 (1.2), self-inflating bag (SIB) was 20.7 (4.4), and flow-inflating bag (AB) was 21.2 (5.0). The mean (SD) positive end expiratory pressure of T-piece resuscitator was 4.7 (0.9) cm of H2O and AB was 1.8 (1.7) cm of H2O. The maximum pressure delivered by T-piece resuscitator was 17.5, AB was 26.2, and SIB was 25.2 cm of H2O. Clinically appropriate breath rates were delivered using all of the devices. More effective breath rates were delivered using T-piece. There was no significant difference among the professional groups. The T-piece resuscitator provides the most consistent pressures and is most effective. Level of training has no influence on pressures delivered during manual ventilation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Professor 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#574
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,218
of 279,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.