Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32335900›Full record

Trial reportAnaesthesia2020

The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.

J Schumacher, J Arlidge, D Dudley, M Sicinski, I Ahmad

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Anaesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Multidisciplinary Safety Recommendations After Tracheostomy During COVID-19 Pandemic: State of the Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J SchumacherDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5307-8077
J ArlidgeDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
D DudleyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
M SicinskiDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
I AhmadDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Guy's and St Thomas´ NHS Hospital TrustNIHR GSTFT/KCL Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.

Indexed as

Respiratory Protective DevicesAirway ManagementAnesthetistsCross-Over StudiesHumansLaryngoscopyManikinsTime FactorsCBRNCOVID-19difficult airway managementpersonal protective equipmentSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32335900
PMCPMC7267320
OpenAlexW3017964925

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.