ArticleCritical care (London, England)2011
The need for standardized data reporting for prehospital airway management.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Systematic analysis of airway registries in emergency medicine].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Establishing quality indicators for pre-hospital advanced airway management: a modified nominal group technique consensus process.British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Airway Management in the Emergency Department (The OcEAN-Study) - a prospective single centre observational cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019Observational
- Standardised data reporting from pre-hospital advanced airway management - a nominal group technique update of the Utstein-style airway template.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Prehospital Intubation and Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury-Assessing Intervention Efficacy in a Modern Trauma Cohort.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- Hypoxia and hypotension in patients intubated by physician staffed helicopter emergency medical services - a prospective observational multi-centre study.BMC emergency medicine · 2017Observational
- The top five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care: a consensus report from a European research collaboration.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite a widespread belief in the value of aggressive prehospital airway management, the therapeutic benefits of early tracheal intubation (TI) remain unclear. In fact, most attempts to elucidate the benefits of prehospital TI on outcome from traumatic brain injury and cardiopulmonary arrest have documented an increase in mortality associated with the procedure. While some degree of selection bias is likely present in these studies, the inherent adverse physiological effects of intubation and a high incidence of desaturation and subsequent hyperventilation may indicate a harmful effect of the procedure. This uncertainty regarding such a fundamental resuscitation procedure as TI underscores the need for standardized data reporting in prehospital airway management research. To this end, the Utstein prehospital airway conference proposed a set of variables that would move us in that direction. However, the present article by Lossius and colleagues documents how far we still have to travel before such standardization can be achieved. Only through these efforts can we elucidate the true benefits - or harm - of advanced airway management during critical resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.