Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33052809›Full record

Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2020

Effect of an Aerosol Box on Intubation in Simulated Emergency Department Airways: A Randomized Crossover Study.

Joseph S Turner, Lauren E Falvo, Rami A Ahmed, Timothy J Ellender, Dan Corson-Knowles, Anna M Bona, Elisa J Sarmiento, Dylan D Cooper

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph S TurnerIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Lauren E FalvoIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Rami A AhmedIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Timothy J EllenderIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dan Corson-KnowlesIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Anna M BonaIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Elisa J SarmientoIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dylan D CooperIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Emergency Service, HospitalPersonal Protective EquipmentSimulation TrainingCOVID-19Cross-Over StudiesEmergency MedicineHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalInternship and ResidencyIntubation, IntratrachealManikinsSARS-CoV-2Time-to-Treatment

Identifiers

PMID33052809
PMCPMC7673888
OpenAlexW3093086666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.