Re: ResMed users -- what do your flow limitations look like?
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:41 pm
something sludge said a while back.Wulfman... wrote:Where did you come up with that value of "0.4"? Any links?
A Forum For All Things CPAP
https://www.cpaptalk.com/
something sludge said a while back.Wulfman... wrote:Where did you come up with that value of "0.4"? Any links?
He says LOTS of things. (most of which I take seriously......in whatever identity he's using at the moment)palerider wrote:something sludge said a while back.Wulfman... wrote:Where did you come up with that value of "0.4"? Any links?
My impression is that sleep doctors, unless they are Krakow, don't generally pay any attention to flow limitationsprincessbelle wrote:I felt great when I woke up from my nap, been a very long time I felt good just waking up. I did take a look at my stats and saw that I should have started around 11. When the flow limit is so wacky is that indicative of nasal restriction? I don't seem to have any issue with breathing through my nose, then again I didn't have any issues sleeping either until that was brought to my attention. I have insurance, a specialist visit is a co-pay wondering if I should just make the appointment. I am learning what all the graphs are, what they mean and what my issues are. Thanks for all the advice.
my impression, (mainly from reading here and there) is that krakow is in the business of selling ASV machines...tan wrote: My impression is that sleep doctors, unless they are Krakow, don't generally pay any attention to flow limitations
For "Dr. Krackpot"?.......i don't think so. I believe you nailed it.palerider wrote:my impression, (mainly from reading here and there) is that krakow is in the business of selling ASV machines...tan wrote: My impression is that sleep doctors, unless they are Krakow, don't generally pay any attention to flow limitations
now, that may be wholly unfair.
Oh, I'm not saying he is right and other doctors are wrong... What I am saying that flow limitations business is his tradepalerider wrote:my impression, (mainly from reading here and there) is that krakow is in the business of selling ASV machines...tan wrote: My impression is that sleep doctors, unless they are Krakow, don't generally pay any attention to flow limitations
now, that may be wholly unfair.
He was also an advocate of these machines, too. And that was after they were already "dinosaurs".tan wrote:Oh, I'm not saying he is right and other doctors are wrong... What I am saying that flow limitations business is his tradepalerider wrote:my impression, (mainly from reading here and there) is that krakow is in the business of selling ASV machines...tan wrote: My impression is that sleep doctors, unless they are Krakow, don't generally pay any attention to flow limitations
now, that may be wholly unfair.
Well, I guess it all started with one of the early ResMed patents, which statedWulfman... wrote:Where did you come up with that value of "0.4"? Any links?
If the flow limitation parameter is between 1 and a predetermined normal reference value, e.g., 0.65-0.8, then the breath is classified as "normal." If the flow limitation parameter is between 0 and a predetermined flow limited reference value, e.g., 0.4, then the breath is classified as "flow limited." If the flow limitation parameter is between the normal and flow limited reference values, then the breath is classified as "intermediate."
Is it just me or do those "parameters" sound bass-ackwards?Sludge wrote:Well, I guess it all started with one of the early ResMed patents, which statedWulfman... wrote:Where did you come up with that value of "0.4"? Any links?
If the flow limitation parameter is between 1 and a predetermined normal reference value, e.g., 0.65-0.8, then the breath is classified as "normal." If the flow limitation parameter is between 0 and a predetermined flow limited reference value, e.g., 0.4, then the breath is classified as "flow limited." If the flow limitation parameter is between the normal and flow limited reference values, then the breath is classified as "intermediate."
But, thanks for that reference info.Sludge wrote:Soon thereafter, the world turned upside down...
Yeah... I wonder if the value that the machine reports out is one minus that parameter?Wulfman... wrote:Is it just me or do those "parameters" sound bass-ackwards?
NotMuffy wrote: What's not to understand?
Rounded = Good
Flattened = Bad
S8 and Earlier Algorithm = "Flattening Index" & Good on Top
S9 Algorithm = "Flow Limitation" & Good on Bottom:
![]()