ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2017
How anaesthesiologists understand difficult airway guidelines-an interview study.
Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2017. 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.
- All India Difficult Airway Association guidelines in practice-A survey.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- How novice and expert anaesthetists understand expertise in anaesthesia: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the practice of anaesthesia, clinical guidelines that aim to improve the safety of airway procedures have been developed. The aim of this study was to explore how anaesthesiologists understand or conceive of difficult airway management algorithms.
methodsA qualitative phenomenographic design was chosen to explore anaesthesiologists' views on airway algorithms. Anaesthesiologists working in three hospitals were included. Individual face-to-face interviews were conducted.
resultsFour different ways of understanding were identified, describing airway algorithms as: (A) a law-like rule for how to act in difficult airway situations; (B) a cognitive aid, an action plan for difficult airway situations; (C) a basis for developing flexible, personal action plans for the difficult airway; and (D) the experts' consensus, a set of scientifically based guidelines for handling the difficult airway.
conclusionsThe interviewed anaesthesiologists understood difficult airway management guidelines/algorithms very differently.
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.