ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021
An oropharyngeal device for airway management of conscious and semiconscious patients: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An oropharyngeal device for airway management of conscious and semiconscious patients: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNo oropharyngeal devices exist for use in conscious and semiconscious trauma patients during emergency evacuation, transport, or resuscitation. We aimed to test the hypotheses that the ManMaxAirway (MMA) is better tolerated than the standard Guedel-style device in awake volunteers and that it produces a jaw thrust and improves air flow.
methodsThis was a randomized cross-over study of healthy volunteers with either the MMA or standard device. The primary outcome of tolerability was defined as maintaining the device in place for 60 seconds. Secondary outcomes included respiratory system function and jaw thrust. Resistance to airflow through the device lumen was measured in situ and when placed in subjects in the pulmonary laboratory alone. Jaw thrust was quantified as displacement between the mandibular condyle and condylar fossa apex relative to baseline visualized with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
resultsWe enrolled 19 subjects. Of these, a convenience sample of 5 individuals was selected for MRI; the remaining individuals (n = 14) were randomized for the cross-over study. All 14 subjects were able to maintain the MMA for 60 seconds compared with 2/14 (14%) with the standard device (odds ratio, 145; 95% confidence interval, 6.3-3314). Subjects reported that the experimental device was more comfortable and its placement did not trigger the gag reflex. Airway resistance produced by the MMA in an oscillatory flow model was nearly an order of magnitude lower than that of the standard device (experimental vs standard, 8 Hz-0.092 vs 0.786 cmH
conclusionsThe MMA proved well tolerated in conscious subjects, resulting in an opening of the anatomic airway and a decreased resistance to airflow.
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.