ArticleJournal of anesthesia2015
Influence of clinical experience of the Macintosh laryngoscope on performance with the Pentax-AWS Airway Scope(®), a rigid video-laryngoscope, by paramedics in Japan.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Progress in difficult airway management.Journal of anesthesia · 2017Article
- Are video laryngoscopes useful for paramedics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation?Journal of anesthesia · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe sought to establish the clinical utility of the Pentax-AWS Airway Scope(®) (AWS) when used by paramedics to intubate the trachea, and to evaluate whether their performance was influenced by previous clinical experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML).
methodsTwenty paramedics attempted tracheal intubation using the AWS in five patients each in the operating room. We recorded the success rate, the number of intubation attempts, and the time for intubation and adverse events, and compared these based on the paramedics' previous clinical experience with the ML. Ten paramedics had no prior clinical experience of the ML (group A) and 10 had used it on more than 30 occasions (group B).
resultsThe intubation success rate was 99 % (99/100). Notably, 96 % (47/49) of intubations were achieved on the first attempt by the inexperienced paramedics in group A, compared with 64 % (32/50) by the experienced paramedics in group B (p = 0.0001). The time to intubation (mean ± SD) was significantly shorter in group A than in group B (37 ± 24 vs. 48 ± 21 s, p = 0.002). There were marked variations in the times taken to intubate, but no apparent improvement as the intubators gained experience between their first and fifth cases. No complications were encountered in either group.
conclusionWe found that paramedics could achieve a high tracheal intubation success rate using the AWS independent of previous airway management experience. Better intubation performance with the AWS was observed in paramedics without clinical experience with the ML.
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.