ArticlePaediatric anaesthesia2021
A comparison of anesthetic protective barriers for the management of COVID-19 pediatric patients.
Article in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Pediatric Airway Management in Times of COVID-19-a Review of the Evidence and Controversies.Current anesthesiology reports · 2021Review
- Performance of Aerosol Boxes for Endotracheal Intubation during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Systematic Review.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarrier techniques, such as plastic sheets or intubation boxes, are purported to offer additional protection for healthcare workers.
aimsTo assess the functionality, perceived safety, droplet protection, and aerosol protection of several barrier techniques.
methodsFirstly, a simulation study with 12 different laryngoscopists was conducted to assess the time taken to perform an intubation (via direct laryngoscopy, via video laryngoscopy, and via a bougie) with four different barrier techniques (personal protective equipment only, a plastic sheet, a tented plastic sheet, and an intubation box). Secondly, a cough at the time of intubation was simulated using ultraviolet dye to assess the spread of droplets; and thirdly, smoke was used to assess the spread of aerosols.
resultsIntubation time using the box was noninferior to using no barrier. Based on subjective ratings by the laryngoscopists, the most functional technique was no barrier followed by the intubation box, then the tented sheet, and then the plastic sheet. The technique that conferred the highest feeling of safety to the laryngoscopists was the intubation box, followed by the tented sheet, then no barrier, and then the plastic sheet. All the barriers prevented the ultraviolet dye contaminating the head and torso of the laryngoscopist. Smoke remained within the intubation box if plastics sheets were used to cover the openings and suction was ineffective at clearing it. With no barrier in place, smoke was effectively cleared away from the patient in a theater with laminar flow but tended to spread up toward the laryngoscopist in a room without laminar flow.
conclusionsA well-designed intubation box is an effective barrier against droplets and is noninferior to no barrier in relation to intubation time. However, a box interferes with laminar flow in theaters with formal ventilation systems and may result in accumulation of aerosols if it is completely enclosed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33280199What 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.