Training and experience are more important than the type of practitioner for intubation success.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A call for collaboration and consensus on training for endotracheal intubation in the medical intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2020
   Article
2. 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 · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Patient safety in pre-hospital emergency tracheal intubation: a comprehensive meta-analysis of the intubation success rates of EMS providers.2012

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as