ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2025
Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manual ventilation is a critical skill for emergency medical service (EMS) members. However, it is challenging in terms of correct ventilation rates and tidal volumes, with potentially severe adverse effects of hypo- and hyperventilation. Measuring the quality and involving real-time feedback may be effective in optimizing of manual ventilation. Methods: Data acquired retrospectively from a quality management project in 143 advanced emergency medical technicians were included. They performed bag ventilations on an intubated adult manikin for two minutes without any feedback system, and then another two minutes with the Real BVM Help Results: With the feedback device, correctly applied ventilation rates increased by 21% (63.6% in the correct range without vs 84.6% with the feedback device; p<0.001), and ventilation volumes improved by 41% (27% in the correct range without vs 68% with the feedback device; p<0.001). Without the device, the average ventilation rate was 10.5 ±3.1/minute, compared to 9.5 ±1.9/minute with the device. Ventilation volumes amounted to 370.6 ±84 mL without Real BVM Help Conclusion: Our data demonstrate significant improvements in ventilation rates and volumes when using a ventilation feedback device. This manikin study suggests a ventilation feedback device being beneficial for the use by EMS members, but our findings must be further validated in real-life conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.