Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Reliability of respiratory function monitor interpretation for neonatal resuscitation
  1. Elizabeth E Foglia1,
  2. Danielle D Weinberg2,
  3. Arjan B te Pas3,
  4. Janneke Dekker3,
  5. Jesse Y Hsu4
  1. 1Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2Neonatology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3Neonatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elizabeth E Foglia, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; foglia{at}chop.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

A respiratory function monitor (RFM) is a potential tool to enhance the quality of positive pressure ventilation (PPV) inflations in the delivery room.1 The RFM calculates, displays and records data about tidal volumes, mask leak, airway obstruction and presence of spontaneous breathing. Although visual interpretation of respiratory signals is integral to this methodology, the reliability of these assessments is unknown. The study objectives were to determine the intrarater and inter-rater reliability of RFM signal interpretation.

This was an observational study of RFM files recorded during PPV resuscitation of preterm infants using the NewLife Box RFM (Advanced Life Diagnostics, Weener, Germany). Four raters reviewed 16 RFM recordings twice using Pulmochart (Advanced Life Diagnostics) software. Raters manually confirmed or adjusted automated triggers …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors EEF conceptualised the study, contributed to data collection and analysis and wrote the first draft of this manuscript. ABtP, JD and DW collected data, interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript. JH contributed to the statistical design, analysed the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. Each named author has read and approved the final draft of this manuscript and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Funding This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; grant numbers R03HD086655-01A1 and K23HD084727-01A1).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.