Laboratory Investigation into the Performance of four Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure (OPEP) Devices set at the Target Pressure Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: OPEP devices are crucial for airway clearance in patients with excessive excess mucus production, including those with bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis (CF) and COPD. This laboratory study compared the performance of four different OPEP devices, each utilizing distinct different mechanisms to generate oscillatory pressure. Flow oscillation amplitude (the magnitude of pulse), was determined at an average positive pressure of 15 cm H 2 O 2 , a midpoint within the therapeutic range of 10–20 cm H2O typically targeted for OPEP devices [ 1 ]. Higher oscillation amplitudes may create stronger shear forces, reducing the viscoelastic properties of bronchial secretions [ 1 ] and enhancing mobilization and clearance [ 2 ]. Methods: Four OPEP devices; Aerobika*(Trudell Medical International), Acapella Choice Blue (ICU Medical), GeloMuc (Pohl Boskamp), and RC Cornet Plus (Cegla) were assessed at their mid resistance setting(s) using a flow generator (Resmed VPAP III), flow meter (TSI 4000) and pressure sensor for data collection and analysis. The average flow oscillation amplitude was measured for each device when the positive pressure was set at 15 cm H 2 O [ 2 ]. Results /Discussion: The devices exhibited varying performance, with Aerobika*achieving the highest flow pulse amplitude, followed by Acapella, GeloMuc, and RC Cornet Plus. Notably, the RC Cornet Plus demonstrated inconsistent oscillations at its higher mid-resistance setting due to inadequate flow rates, with more reliable results at the lower mid-resistance setting. Discussion And Conclusions: The Aerobika*OPEP device performed the best overall, demonstrating the highest average flow pulse amplitudes at the target pressure setting. Limitations of the study include recognition that the clinical impact of such differences in flow amplitudes should be proven in patients and that patients may not always operate their OPEP devices at the target 15 cm H 2 O 2 positive pressure. When selecting an OPEP device, it is crucial to consider not only the clinical evidence supporting its efficacy and patient preferences but also the variations in mechanical mode of operation that can influence device performance. Fig. 1 Publication History Article published online: 18 March 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".