ArticleRevista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion2022
[Airway management of COVID-19 patients: a survey on the experience of 1125 physicians in Spain].
Article in Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Security protocols adapted to COVID-19 in elective surgery thru 2021].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2022Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe explored the experience of clinicians from the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology in airway management of COVID-19 patients.
methodsAn software-based survey including a 32-item questionnaire was conducted from April 18 to May 17, 2020. Participants who have been involved in tracheal intubations in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were included anonymously after obtaining their informed consent. The primary outcome was the preferred airway device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included the variations in clinical practice including the preferred video laryngoscope, plans for difficult airway management, and personal protective equipment.
results1125 physicians completed the questionnaire with a response rate of 40,9%. Most participants worked in public hospitals and were anesthesiologists.The preferred device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (5.1/6), with the type of device in decreasing order as follows: Glidescope, C-MAC, Airtraq, McGrath and King Vision. The most frequently used device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (70,5%), using them in descending order as follow: the Airtraq, C-MAC, Glidescope, McGrath and King Vision.Discomfort of intubating wearing personal protective equipment and the frequency of breaching a security step was statistically significant, increasing the risk of cross infection between patients and physicians. The opinion of senior doctors differed from younger physicians in the type of video-laryngoscope used, the number of experts involved in tracheal intubation and the reason that caused more stress during the airway management.
conclusionsMost physicians preferred using a video-laryngoscope with remote monitor and disposable Macintosh blade, using the Frova guide.
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.