Trial reportBioMed research international2015
Comparison of Pentax-AWS Airwayscope and Glidescope for Infant Tracheal Intubation by Anesthesiologists during Cardiopulmonary Arrest Simulation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Trial
- Difficult Airway Management in Neonates and Infants: Knowledge of Devices and a Device-Oriented Strategy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent guidelines for infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation emphasize that all rescuers should minimize interruption of chest compressions, even for endotracheal intubation. We compared the utility of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) with the Glidescope (GS) during chest compressions on an infant manikin.
methodsTwenty-four anesthesiologists with more than two years of experience performed tracheal intubation on an infant manikin using the AWS and GS, with or without chest compressions.
resultsIn GS trials, none of the participants failed without compressions, while three failed with compressions. In AWS trials, all participants succeeded regardless of chest compressions. Intubation time was significantly longer with chest compressions with the GS (P < 0.05), but not with the AWS. Difficulty of operation on a visual analog scale (VAS) for laryngoscopy did not increase significantly with chest compressions with either the GS or the AWS, while the VAS for tube passage through the glottis increased with compressions with the GS, but not with the AWS.
conclusionWe conclude that in infant simulations managed by anesthesiologists, the AWS performed better than the GS for endotracheal intubation with chest compressions.
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.