ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2016
[The supraglottic airway in the prehospital setting].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2016. 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.
- [Skill retention using extraglottic airways in out-of-hospital emergencies: efficacy and long-term results of simulator-based medical education : A prospective follow-up study].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2019Article
- [Conventional intubation and laryngeal tube in cervical spine instability : Changes in the width of the dural sac in unfixed human body donors].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The supraglottic airway (SGA) is increasingly considered as a more effective alternative for emergency ventilation compared to bag mask ventilation and is propagated as an "easily" manageable method, compared to endotracheal intubation especially under the often adverse out-of-hospital conditions. Since the skill can easily be acquired during mannequin training, more and more rescue services train their personnel in the use of SGA devices and allow or even recommend their application also by nonphysicians. This recommendation, however, is not unequivocally supported by properly designed and conducted trials. Moreover, the solely available observational studies show contradictory results. Neither superiority nor inferiority of SGAs has been shown. They may, however, be accepted as an addendum to other prehospital ventilation approaches. The SGA airway comprises various problems and inherited risks similar to other ventilation techniques. Randomized studies investigating different techniques for prehospital emergency ventilation are lacking, as are controlled studies comparing SGA devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26340800What 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.