This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-invasive ventilation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I realize this will cause some controversy, but I wonder if the article name should not reference the most recent colloquial use of the term and the literature's choice of inclusive terms. Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure is a non-inclusive term as it does not include modern modes such as Proportional Airway Pressure and as modern ventilators are not only time-cycled (as are the old BiPAP S/T units) but flow cycled (as are the new ResMed vPAP units and the newer Philips [Respironics] units) as are modern pressure-supported ventilators. Time-cycled inspiration is (thankfully) now a thing of the past, and time-cycling is used only as a safety measure as may be necessary in those who are unable to flow-cycle inspiration ( bronchopleural fistula, severe COPD). In an effort to be non-vendor dependent, most places seem to have gotten away from the whole Bilevel PAP (as the root terminology for BiPAP which is a trademark) and have gone towards non-invasive ventilation (or NIV). Wrin ( talk) 09:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrin ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
added some history I found, though I dont know Professor Benzers first name. "H" is the initial. Matzerath1 ( talk) 10:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The article should discuss what difference, if any, exists between the terms BiPAP (or BIPAP) and BPAP. Some articles such as ALS use both terms and it is not clear whether or not they are 100% interchangeable. Roches ( talk)
The photo used seems dated to me because the equipment and attachment to ones mouth or nose are much much smaller now. I could produce one with my bipap if you like. Also, mostly patients use them every night so an out of hospital picture would be better. Lastly, folks can get scared when faced with possibly using the device so more up to date picture showing how non invasive they can be might be helpful.
Let me know if you want those pictures and I will supply them. Jamesooden ( talk) 20:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
There might be a need to discuss the NCEPOD study discussing the use of acute NIV in the UK ( http://www.ncepod.org.uk/niv.html). COI one of the steering group members of the study. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
For acute NIV: doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208281 JFW | T@lk 10:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2017.02.005 JFW | T@lk 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Worth adding where relevant. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
doi:10.1183/13993003.02426-2016 JFW | T@lk 11:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Weaning from IMV to NIV - meta-analysis doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5434-z JFW | T@lk 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a useful review: doi:10.1111/resp.13631 (in print). Covers some of the history as well as new technologies where fixed pressures or volumes might not be appropriate. JFW | T@lk 14:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
doi:10.1183/13993003.01003-2019 JFW | T@lk 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-invasive ventilation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I realize this will cause some controversy, but I wonder if the article name should not reference the most recent colloquial use of the term and the literature's choice of inclusive terms. Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure is a non-inclusive term as it does not include modern modes such as Proportional Airway Pressure and as modern ventilators are not only time-cycled (as are the old BiPAP S/T units) but flow cycled (as are the new ResMed vPAP units and the newer Philips [Respironics] units) as are modern pressure-supported ventilators. Time-cycled inspiration is (thankfully) now a thing of the past, and time-cycling is used only as a safety measure as may be necessary in those who are unable to flow-cycle inspiration ( bronchopleural fistula, severe COPD). In an effort to be non-vendor dependent, most places seem to have gotten away from the whole Bilevel PAP (as the root terminology for BiPAP which is a trademark) and have gone towards non-invasive ventilation (or NIV). Wrin ( talk) 09:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrin ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
added some history I found, though I dont know Professor Benzers first name. "H" is the initial. Matzerath1 ( talk) 10:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The article should discuss what difference, if any, exists between the terms BiPAP (or BIPAP) and BPAP. Some articles such as ALS use both terms and it is not clear whether or not they are 100% interchangeable. Roches ( talk)
The photo used seems dated to me because the equipment and attachment to ones mouth or nose are much much smaller now. I could produce one with my bipap if you like. Also, mostly patients use them every night so an out of hospital picture would be better. Lastly, folks can get scared when faced with possibly using the device so more up to date picture showing how non invasive they can be might be helpful.
Let me know if you want those pictures and I will supply them. Jamesooden ( talk) 20:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
There might be a need to discuss the NCEPOD study discussing the use of acute NIV in the UK ( http://www.ncepod.org.uk/niv.html). COI one of the steering group members of the study. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
For acute NIV: doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208281 JFW | T@lk 10:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2017.02.005 JFW | T@lk 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Worth adding where relevant. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
doi:10.1183/13993003.02426-2016 JFW | T@lk 11:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Weaning from IMV to NIV - meta-analysis doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5434-z JFW | T@lk 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a useful review: doi:10.1111/resp.13631 (in print). Covers some of the history as well as new technologies where fixed pressures or volumes might not be appropriate. JFW | T@lk 14:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
doi:10.1183/13993003.01003-2019 JFW | T@lk 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)