ArticleDer Anaesthesist2018
[Different levels of experience with anesthetic agents of German emergency physicians : Results of an online survey].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. 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.
- [Preclinical emergency anesthesia : A current state analysis from 2015-2017].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
- [Performance of prehospital emergency anesthesia and airway management : An online survey].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn 2015 practice management guidelines on prehospital emergency anesthesia in adults were published in Germany. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether emergency physicians follow these guidelines in daily practice and to assess their level of experience with the use of anesthetic agents. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn an online survey the way of induction of preclinical anesthesia (including preoxygenation time and applied monitoring techniques) was assessed with the help of virtual scenarios based on the guidelines. Furthermore, the individual level of experience with specific anesthetic agents was estimated by the total number of anesthetic procedures performed with these drugs (0, 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, and >100 procedures).
resultA total of 155 emergency physicians answered the online survey. Except for cardiac patients and for the preoxygenation time, we found a high accordance between specific algorithms proposed in the guidelines and emergency physicians' clinical practice. Furthermore, the median level of experience with rocuronium and succinylcholine was significantly higher compared to vecuronium. With respect to induction agents the highest level of experience was found for propofol and thiopental, the lowest for the combination of ketamine/propofol and midazolam. Generally, compared to non-anesthetists, emergency physicians had significantly higher levels of experience with the use of these anesthetic agents (except for etomidate and vecuronium). Over 94% used a 4-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), pulse oxymetry, non-invasive blood pressure and quantitative capnography for monitoring. The availability of succinylcholine was 91%, rocuronium 55%, vecuronium 29% and sugammadex 9%.
conclusionThe results of this survey demonstrate that clinical practice of emergency physicians is in high accordance with the recommendations named in the guidelines for prehospital emergency anesthesia in adults (except for cardiac patients and time of preoxygenation). With respect to the lower levels of experience of non-anesthetists in the use of anesthetic drugs, specific training concepts may help to further improve the quality of preclinical emergency care.
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.