ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2019
[Supraglottic airway devices and intraosseous access in the treatment of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest : Do we use the wrong tool too often?]
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOnly a little is known about the frequency of use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) and intraosseous (IO) access in patients who have had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed data from all patients who had had OHCA admitted to our hospital between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2017.
resultsA total of 135 (33.8%) patients who had had OHCA were admitted with a SAD, 223 (55.8%) with an endotracheal tube, 3 (0.8%) with mask ventilation, and 32 (8.0%) breathed spontaneously on admission to hospital. Three hundred and twenty-eight patients (82.0%) were admitted with a peripheral intravenous line, one (0.3%) with a central venous catheter, one (0.3%) with a port catheter, and 32 (8.0%) with IO access.
conclusionsIrrespective of an increasing number of studies that raise the question whether the airway management of patients who have had OHCA using an SGA might be inferior to that with endotracheal tubes, approximately one third of all patients who have had OHCA were admitted with an SAD in this study. On the other hand, IO access is significantly less frequently used, despite fewer critical study results overall.
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.