A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessment of accuracy of the Vacu-Med 17053 calibrator for ventilation, oxygen uptake (V(O(2))), and carbon dioxide production (V(CO(2))). | LitMetric

Background: Few have examined the accuracy of mechanical calibrators used to calibrate metabolic monitors.

Objective: To evaluate the Vacu-Med 17053 motorized syringe calibrator for accuracy against the accepted standard method: the Douglas bag.

Methods: We tested oxygen consumption values (V(O(2))) of 522-3,210 mL/min. We mixed room air and calibration gases in the pumping syringes of the Vacu-Med 17053 and evacuated those gases into a Douglas bag, measured the Douglas bag volumes and concentrations, and converted to pulmonary ventilation, V(O(2)), and carbon dioxide production (V(CO(2))).

Results: The Vacu-Med 17053 calibrator overestimated V(O(2)) by a mean 28.6 mL/min (1.3% error), underestimated V(CO(2)) by 6.9 mL/min (-1.7% error), and underestimated pulmonary ventilation by 0.98 L/min (-1.4% error). The V(O(2)) and V(CO(2)) differences between the calibrator and the Douglas bag were larger at higher V(O(2)) levels.

Conclusions: The V(O(2)) and V(CO(2)) differences might be attributable to fluctuations of the calibrator settings. The Vacu-Med 17053 calibrator was accurate with the application of a mathematical correction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4187/respcare.00951DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

vacu-med 17053
20
17053 calibrator
12
douglas bag
12
vo2 carbon
8
carbon dioxide
8
dioxide production
8
pulmonary ventilation
8
error underestimated
8
vo2 vco2
8
vco2 differences
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!