Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 14;2017(9):CD004711. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004711.pub3

Campbell 2000.

Methods Randomized cross‐over study comparing 2 types of HME to HH.
Participants Inclusion criteria: people following surgery, 15/26 breathing spontaneously and 11/26 ventilated.
Mean age: 44 years.
Exclusion criteria: not stated.
Respiratory diagnosis: 58%.
Severity: not stated.
Setting: surgical ICU, USA.
Interventions HME (hygroscopic): Humid‐Vent 2 (Gibeck).
n = 26.
HME: Extended use (Mallinckrodt).
n = 26.
HH (heated wire): MR730 (Fischer & Paykel) set at 34 ºC.
n = 26.
Time in study: 1 hr for each type of humidification.
Outcomes

  • Breathing rate.

  • Tidal volume.

  • Minute volume.

  • SaO2.

  • PaO2.

  • PaCO2.
Notes Funding: not stated.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not stated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not stated.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not stated.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 100% follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No protocol available but a range of respiratory variables reported for this short‐term trial.
Other bias Low risk None identified.