Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2020
Time to adapt in the pandemic era: a prospective randomized non -inferiority study comparing time to intubate with and without the barrier box.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04411056 (Time to Adapt in the Pandemic Era), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Time to Adapt in the Pandemic Era: A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Time to Intubate With and Without the Barrier Box
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aerosol Box Use in Reducing Health Care Worker Contamination During Airway Procedures (AIRWAY Study): A Simulation-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Comparison of the Efficiency and Usability of Aerosol Box and Intubation Tent on Intubation of a Manikin Using Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized Crossover Study.The Journal of emergency medicine · 2021Trial
- Application of a protective sleeve is associated with decreased occupational anxiety during endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Trial
- The impact of a barrier enclosure on time to tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Trial
- Time to intubate with an innovative intubation device: a dual-center randomized crossover non-inferiority simulation study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Macintosh laryngoscope and i-view™ and C-MAC® video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box: a randomized crossover manikin study.JA clinical reports · 2021Article
- Intubation outcomes using the aerosol box during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective, observational study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Performance of Aerosol Boxes for Endotracheal Intubation during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Systematic Review.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
- Comparison of endotracheal intubation with Macintosh versus King Vision video laryngoscope using coronavirus disease 2019 barrier box on manikins: A randomized crossover study.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
- The FEES box: A novel barrier to contain particles during aerosol-generating procedures.American journal of otolaryngologyArticle
- Effectiveness of "Resuscitation Cover All" in Minimizing COVID-19 Transmission to Health-Care Workers during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe challenges posed by the spread of COVID-19 disease through aerosols have compelled anesthesiologists to modify their airway management practices. Devices such as barrier boxes are being considered as potential adjuncts to full PPE's to limit the aerosol spread. Usage of the barrier box raises concerns of delay in time to intubate (TTI). We designed our study to determine if using a barrier box with glidescope delays TTI within acceptable parameters to make relevant clinical conclusions.
methodsSeventy-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective non-inferiority controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either group C (without the barrier box) or the study group BB (using barrier box). The primary measured endpoint is time to intubate (TTI), which is defined as time taken from loss of twitches confirmed with a peripheral nerve stimulator to confirmation of end-tidal CO
resultsMean TTI in group C was 42 s (CI 19.2 to 64.8) vs. 52.1 s (CI 26.1 to 78) in group BB. The difference in mean TTI was 10.1 s (CI -∞ to 14.9). We rejected the null hypothesis and concluded with 95% confidence that the difference of the mean TTI between the groups is less than < 15 s (95% CI -∞ to 14.9,p = 0.0461). Our induction times were comparable (67.7 vs. 65.9 s).100% of our patients were intubated on the first attempt in both groups. None of our patients needed rescue breaths.
conclusionsWe conclude that in patients with normal airway exam, scheduled for elective surgeries, our barrier box did not cause any clinically significant delay in TTI when airway manipulation is performed by well-trained providers. The study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04411056) on May 27, 2020.
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.