Trial reportDer Anaesthesist2016
Effect of using a laryngeal tube on the no-flow time in a simulated, single-rescuer, basic life support setting with inexperienced users.
Trial report in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Out-of-hospital airway management during manual compression or automated chest compression devices : A registry-based analysis.Der Anaesthesist · 2018Observational
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
backgroundThe laryngeal tube (LT) is a recommended alternative to endotracheal intubation during advanced life support (ALS). Its insertion is relatively simple; therefore, it may also serve as an alternative to bag mask ventilation (BMV) for untrained personnel performing basic life support (BLS). Data support the influence of LT on the no-flow time (NFT) compared with BMV during ALS in manikin studies.
methodsWe performed a manikin study to investigate the effect of using the LT for ventilation instead of BMV on the NFT during BLS in a prospective, randomized, single-rescuer study. All 209 participants were trained in BMV, but were inexperienced in using LT; each participant performed BLS during a 4-min time period.
resultsNo significant difference in total NFT (LT: mean 81.1 ± 22.7 s; BMV: mean 83.2 ± 13.1 s, p = 0.414) was found; however, significant differences in the later periods of the scenario were identified. While ventilating with the LT, the proportion of chest compressions increased significantly from 67.2 to 73.2%, whereas the proportion of chest compressions increased only marginally when performing BMV. The quality of the chest compressions and the associated ventilation rate did not differ significantly. The mean tidal volume and mean minute volume were significantly lower when performing BMV.
conclusionsThe NFT was significantly shorter in the later periods in a single-rescuer, cardiac arrest scenario when using an LT without previous training compared with BMV with previous training. A possible explanation for this result may be the complexity and workload of alternating tasks (e.g., time loss when reclining the head and positioning the mask for each ventilation during BMV).
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.