Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2020
Effect of an Aerosol Box on Intubation in Simulated Emergency Department Airways: A Randomized Crossover Study.
Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2020. 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, 14 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
- Article
- Development and demonstration of the protective efficacy of a convertible respiratory barrier enclosure: a simulation study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Efficiency, limitations, and familiarization of a novel negative pressure aerosol box for intubation: a simulation-based randomized crossover study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Performance of Aerosol Boxes for Endotracheal Intubation during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Systematic Review.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
- Comparison of aerosol box intubation with styletted endotracheal tube and intubation over bougie: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of transparent plastic aerosol boxes as protective barriers during endotracheal intubation has been advocated during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. There is evidence of worldwide distribution of such devices, but some experts have warned of possible negative impacts of their use. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of an aerosol box on intubation performance across a variety of simulated difficult airway scenarios in the emergency department.
methodsThis was a randomized, crossover design study. Participants were randomized to intubate one of five airway scenarios with and without an aerosol box in place, with randomization of intubation sequence. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane view, percent of glottic opening, and resident physician perception of intubation difficulty.
resultsForty-eight residents performed 96 intubations. Time to intubation was significantly longer with box use than without (mean 17 seconds [range 6-68 seconds] vs mean 10 seconds [range 5-40 seconds], p <0.001). Participants perceived intubation as being significantly more difficult with the aerosol box. There were no significant differences in the number of attempts or quality of view obtained.
conclusionUse of an aerosol box during difficult endotracheal intubation increases the time to intubation and perceived difficulty across a range of simulated ED patients.
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.