Providing PEEP during neonatal resuscitation: Which device is best?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aims to compare three commonly used neonatal resuscitation devices, the Laerdal self-inflating bag with a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) valve, a T-piece resuscitator (T-piece) and a flow-inflating bag to provide peak inflation pressure (PIP) and PEEP. METHODS: Participants were asked to use each device to give positive pressure ventilation to a modified neonatal mannequin via a face mask to achieve 40-60 inflations per minute, aiming for a PIP/PEEP of 30/5 cm H₂O. A manometer was visible to participants with each device. PIP, PEEP, percentage leak at the face mask and expired tidal volume were measured using a hot-wire anemometer. We analysed 20 inflations from each participant for each device. RESULTS: Fifty participants provided PIP and PEEP with each device. The T-piece was the most accurate and consistent. The flow-inflating bag had the most variation. The leak was lowest with the self-inflating bag and PEEP and highest with the flow-inflating bag, but all had wide variation. CONCLUSION: Each device was able to provide PIP and PEEP when used appropriately. When compared with other resuscitation devices, the T-piece provided the most accurate and consistent PIP and PEEP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".