Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29508014›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2018

[Certain and controversial components of "rapid sequence induction"].

T Mencke, A Zitzmann, D A Reuter

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T MenckeKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland. thomas.mencke@googlemail.com.
A ZitzmannKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
D A ReuterKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
Universitätsmedizin Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid sequence induction (RSI) is a specific technique for anesthesia induction, which is performed in patients with an increased risk for pulmonary aspiration (e.g. intestinal obstruction, severe injuries and cesarean section). The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is very low but 10-30% of anesthesia-related deaths are caused by the consequences of ARDS. The classical RSI with its main components (i.e. head-up position, avoidance of positive pressure ventilation and administration of succinylcholine) was published nearly 50 years ago and has remained almost unchanged. The modified RSI consists of mask ventilation before endotracheal intubation is performed or the use of non-depolarizing muscle relaxants. Succinylcholine 1.0 mg/kg or rocuronium 1.0-1.2 mg/kg should be administered to achieve excellent intubation conditions. The use of cricoid pressure was a cornerstone of RSI after its introduction in 1961; however, after controversial discussions in recent years, cricoid pressure has lost its importance. Before surgery gastric emptying with a nasogastric tube is mandatory in patients with ileus and passage or defecation disorders.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealMaleNeuromuscular Depolarizing AgentsNeuromuscular Nondepolarizing AgentsRespiratory Distress SyndromeRocuroniumSuccinylcholineNeuromuscular Depolarizing AgentsNeuromuscular Nondepolarizing AgentsRocuroniumSuccinylcholineAirway managementCricoid pressureIleusRocuroniumSuccinylcholine

Identifiers

PMID29508014
OpenAlexW2793761097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.