Chriton wrote:I ran across this in another thread and it seems apropos here as well. It is part of this post viewtopic.php?p=97023#97023
-SWS wrote: you cannot take any one person's response to an APAP algorithm and conclusively generalize that single person's response across an entire apneic patient population. The laws of probability across an extremely physiologically diverse human population simply don't work that way. That statement is true of BiLevel algorithms as well, IMO.
What one person describes as "clearly a problem" with a particular machine or algorithm is their opinion based upon their experience and cannot be assumed to be a problem for everyone else.
_________________
CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): APAP
I read SWS's post there and thus will answer it here for both.
In circumstances like this, If I have an machine that I purchased to do a job using a *normal* configuration & it doesn't behave as it should, there are many possibilities - these are the common ones
1) This *one* machine may have a defect
2) I bought the wrong machine for the job
3) The machine can't do what it claims in can
4) I am not using the machine correctly
(*normal* config = 15 cms Ipap, 8 cms Epap, UMFF mask, 6ft hose, + 12in hose on the mask).
In my case and in regard to the 1st machine I bought, I concluded 1) above (that this one unit was defective). I posted comments to this effect 6 months back when I 1st asked for opinions on why it was behaving oddly).
I later paid a large amount (the most I have ever paid for any machine) for a 2nd one brand new. I was completely taken aback when it behaved exactly as the 1st.
Now if in the end, I obtain 3 machines that all behave in a similar fashion in the example situation & all 3 fail to produce the desired result and *in a clearly obvious manner*, then there is a high probability that the 3 machines either ...
1) Just aren't suited for the job at hand
2) Have a design limitation that shows up for the current job
The to go further. If I am in a situation where I can test any of the 3 machines against 5-6 other machines designed for the same job *and* they *all* do the job as expected, then I believe it is simply basic logic to then conclude there is probably a design limitation (by any other sane words, a 'flaw') in the 3 same brand/type machines that can't do the job.
The bottom line for me as a diagnostician, is that other brands & models both new and old, don't exhibit this questioned behaviour. This behaviour renders these machines unuseable for me. Also, unlike the runaway conditions discussed. The problem I have spoken of is predicatable and repeatable. As I said, I am *not* going to buy a 4th one to prove what I already can see, repeatedly and predictably.
Now, it seems that some people can't seem to accept or won't accept (for whatever their reasons), that someone among us here, may have the background and expertise & diagnostic skills to come to any such conclusion about a brand of xPAP.
A point-of-view that argues that *no* xpap machines have any design 'limitations' (flaws) is absurd. To imply that someone with reasonable intelligence & who has taken the time & the effort to *thoroughly* investigate the problem, can't be right about an apparent 'flaw', is frustrating.
Cheers
DSM
_________________
CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): hose, APAP