Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2016
Evaluation of a smartphone camera system to enable visualization and image transmission to aid tracheal intubation with the Airtraq(®) laryngoscope.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 3D printing in critical care: a narrative review.3D printing in medicine · 2020Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using three-dimensional printing, we produced adaptors to attach a smartphone with camera to the eyepiece of the Airtraq(®) laryngoscope. This low-cost system enabled a team to simultaneously view the laryngoscopy process on the smartphone screen, and also enabled image transmission. We compared the Airtraq(®) with the smartphone Airtraq(®) system in a crossover study of trainee anesthesiologists performing tracheal intubation in a manikin. We also evaluated the smartphone Airtraq(®) system for laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in 30 patients, including image transmission to and communication with a remote instructor. In the manikin study, the smartphone Airtraq(®) system enabled instruction where both trainee and instructor could view the larynx simultaneously, and did not substantially increase the time required for intubation. In the patient study, we were able to view the larynx in all 30 patients, and the remote instructor was able to receive the images and to respond on correctness of laryngoscopy and tracheal tube placement. Tracheal intubation was successful within 90s in 19 (63 %) patients. In conclusion, use of a smartphone with the Airtraq(®) may facilitate instruction and communication of laryngoscopy with the Airtraq(®), overcoming some of its limitations.
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.