ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2018
Pre-hospital i-gel blind intubation for trauma: a simulation study.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication-Facilitated Advanced Airway Management with First-Line Use of a Supraglottic Device - A One-Year Quality Assurance Review.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2022Article
- Translation of learning objectives in medical education using high-and low-fidelity simulation: Learners' perspectives.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2019Article
- Comparison of blind intubation with different supraglottic airway devices by inexperienced physicians in several airway scenarios: a manikin study.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Article
- Comparison of i-Gel as a Conduit for Intubation between under Fiberoptic Guidance and Blind Endotracheal Intubation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Simulation Study.Emergency medicine international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of i-gel blind intubation (IGI) as a rescue device for definitive airway management in ground intubation for pre-hospital trauma patients.
methodsA prospective randomized crossover study was conducted with 18 paramedics to examine intubation performance of two blind intubation techniques through a supraglottic airway devices (IGI and laryngeal mask airway Fastrach), compared with use of a Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL). Each intubation was conducted at two levels of patient positions (ground- and stretcher-level). Primary outcomes were the intubation time and the success rate for intubation.
resultsThe intubation time (sec) of each intubation technique was not significantly different between the two positions. In both patient positions, the intubation time of IGI was shortest among the three intubation techniques (17.9±5.2 at the ground-level and 16.9±3.8 at the stretcher-level). In the analysis of cumulative success rate and intubation time, IGI was the fastest to reach 100% success among the three intubation techniques regardless of patient position (all P<0.017). The success of intubation was only affected by the intubation technique, and IGI achieved more success than MCL (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 11.6; P=0.03).
conclusionThe patient position did not affect intubation performance. Additionally, the intubation time with blind intubation through supraglottic airway devices, especially with IGI, was significantly shorter than that with MCL.
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.