ArticleDer Anaesthesist2014
[Prehospital non-invasive ventilation in Germany: results of a nationwide survey of ground-based emergency medical services].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an evidence-based treatment of acute respiratory failure and can be helpful to reduce morbidity and mortality. In Germany national S3 guidelines for inhospital use of NIV based on a large number of clinical trials were published in 2008; however, only limited data for prehospital non-invasive ventilation (pNIV) and hence no recommendations for prehospital use exist so far.
aimIn order to create a database for pNIV in Germany a nationwide survey was conducted to explore the status quo for the years 2005-2008 and to survey expected future developments including disposability, acceptance and frequency of pNIV. MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire on the use of pNIV was developed and distributed to 270 heads of medical emergency services in Germany.
resultsOf the 270 questionnaires distributed 142 could be evaluated (52 %). The pNIV was rated as a reasonable treatment option in 91 % of the respondents but was available in only 54 out of the 142 responding emergency medical services (38 %). Continuous positive airway pressure (98 %) and biphasic positive airway pressure (22 %) were the predominantly used ventilation modes. Indications for pNIV use were acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (96 %), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (89 %), asthma (32 %) and pneumonia (28 %). Adverse events were reported for panic (20 ± 17%) and non-threatening heart rhythm disorders (8 ± 5%), the rate of secondary intubation was low (reduction from 20 % to 10 %) and comparable to data from inhospital treatment.
conclusionPrehospital NIV in Germany was used by only one third of all respondents by the end of 2008. Based on the clinical data a growing application for pNIV is expected. Controlled prehospital studies are needed to enunciate evidence-based recommendations for pNIV.
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.