Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32668835›Full record

ReviewKorean journal of anesthesiology2020

Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: a narrative review and appraisal.

Sharon Ong, Wan Yen Lim, John Ong, Peter Kam

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Body Map of Droplet Distributions During Oropharyngeal Suction to Protect Health Care Workers From Airborne Diseases.Journal of perianesthesia nursing : official journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Two years of the COVID-19 pandemic: an anesthesiology perspective.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sharon OngDuke-NUS Medical School, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore.
Wan Yen LimDivision of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Sciences, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
John OngDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter KamDepartment of Anesthetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Singapore General Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SGThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.

Indexed as

InternationalityPractice Guidelines as TopicAnesthesiaCOVID-19HumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalOccupational ExposurePerioperative CarePersonal Protective EquipmentRepublic of KoreaAnesthesiaCoronavirus infectionsCOVID-19GuidelinesPerioperative managementPerioperative medicineReview

Identifiers

PMID32668835
PMCPMC7714635
OpenAlexW3043387461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.