ArticleBMC medical education2018
Biomechanical profiles of tracheal intubation: a mannequin-based study to make an objective assessment of clinical skills by expert anesthesiologists and novice residents.
Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of the Denver Critical Illness Intubation Entrustment (D-CITE) Tool.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Simulation-based airway research: The fast-track recipes?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Reducing musculoskeletal pain in the operating theatre.BJA education · 2022Review
- Biomechanical analysis of expert anesthesiologists and novice residents performing a simulated central venous access procedure.PloS one · 2021Article
- The Anesthesiologist's Role in Teaching Airway Management to Nonanesthesiologists: Who, Where, and How.Advances in anesthesia · 2020Review
- Ergonomic Challenges Inherent in Neonatal Resuscitation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTracheal intubation (TI) is a key medical skill used by anesthesiologists and critical care physicians in airway management in operating rooms and critical care units. An objective assessment of dexterity in TI procedures would greatly enhance the quality of medical training. This study aims to investigate whether any biomechanical parameters obtained by 3D-motion analysis of body movements during TI procedures can objectively distinguish expert anesthesiologists from novice residents.
methodsThirteen expert anesthesiologists and thirteen residents attempted TI procedures on an airway mannequin using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Motion capturing technology was utilized to digitally record movements during TI procedures. The skill with which experts and novices measured biomechanical parameters of body motions were comparatively examined.
resultsThe two groups showed similar outcomes (success rates and mean time needed to complete the TI procedures) as well as similar mean absolute velocity values in all 21 body parts examined. However, the experts exhibited significantly lower mean absolute acceleration values at the head and the left hand than the residents. In addition, the mean-absolute-jerk measurement revealed that the experts commanded potentially smoother motions at the head and the left hand. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves analysis demonstrated that mean-absolute-acceleration and -jerk measurements provide excellent measures for discriminating between experts and novices.
conclusionsBiomechanical parameter measurements could be used as a means to objectively assess dexterity in TI procedures. Compared with novice residents, expert anesthesiologists possess a better ability to control their body movements during TI procedures, displaying smoother motions at the selected body parts.
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.