Trial reportMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2016
Effect of the laryngeal tube on the no-flow-time in a simulated two rescuer basic life support setting with inexperienced users.
Trial report 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of using a laryngeal tube on the no-flow time in a simulated, single-rescuer, basic life support setting with inexperienced users.Der Anaesthesist · 2016Trial
- Efficiency of two-member crews in delivering prehospital advanced life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntubation with a laryngeal tube (LT) is a recommended alternative to endotracheal intubation during advanced life support (ALS). LT insertion is easy; therefore, it may also be an alternative to bag-mask ventilation (BMV) for untrained personnel performing basic life support (BLS). Data from manikin studies support the influence of LT on no-flow-time (NFT) during ALS.
methodsWe performed a prospective, randomized manikin study using a two-rescuer model to compare the effects of ventilation using a LT and BMV on NFT during BLS. Participants were trained in BMV and were inexperienced in the use of a LT.
resultsThere was no significant difference in total NFT with the use of a LT and BMV (LT: mean 83.1 ± 37.3 s; BMV: mean 78.7 ± 24.5 s; p = 0.313), but we found significant differences in the progression of the scenario: in the BLS-scenario, the proportion of time spent performing chest compressions was higher when BMV was used compared to when a LT was used. The quality of chest compressions and the ventilation rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean tidal volume and mean minute volume were significantly larger with the use of a LT compared with the use of BMV.
conclusionsIn conclusion, in a two-rescuer BLS scenario, NFT is longer with the use of a LT (without prior training) than with the use of BMV (with prior training). The probable reasons for this result are higher tidal volumes with the use of a LT leading to longer interruptions without 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.