Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34156480›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2022

[Nebulization of emergency medications in the south German rescue service].

M Otto, Y Kropp, T Viergutz, M Thiel, C Tsagogiorgas

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

M OttoKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland.
Y KroppKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland.
T ViergutzKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland.
M ThielKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland.
C TsagogiorgasKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland. charalambos.tsagogiorgas@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEMedizinische Fakultät MannheimSt. Elisabethen-Krankenhaus Frankfurt · DEUniversity Medical Centre Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn German emergency rescue services, inhalation treatment is routinely carried out by qualified health personnel. Standard operating procedures (SOP) for nebulization are neither uniform throughout Germany nor available in all federal states. Standardized recommendations with respect to which nebulizer type should be used are missing. The aerosol output as well as the drug deposition rates of jet and mesh nebulizers, however, differ considerably. Mesh devices can achieve a threefold higher lung deposition. Their use in emergency departments has also been shown to be associated with a better patient outcome when compared to jet nebulizers.

objectiveThis survey was designed to evaluate the type of nebulizer used in the south German rescue services. Special attention was paid to the influence of existing SOP on the decision to perform nebulization during emergency treatment. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 4800 emergency paramedics working in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate received a questionnaire with a total of 17 questions on the implementation of drug nebulization in the daily practice.

resultsDespite the existence of more efficient nebulizer types, the jet nebulizer was by far the most frequently used nebulizer in the south German rescue services. The deposition rates of both the jet and mesh nebulizers were considerably overestimated by most respondents; however, 77.5% of all respondents could not give any information about the deposition rates of the mesh nebulizer. Only two thirds of all respondents carried out nebulization treatment on the basis of SOP. The implementation of SOP, however, was pivotal to the application of nebulization during emergencies. If SOP were in place,76.9% of the responders used aerosol treatment compared to 23.1% when there were none. The perceived safety when using nebulization during emergencies was also significantly higher (p = 0.013) when SOP were implemented.

conclusionThe exclusive use of mesh nebulizers could standardize the treatment of emergency patients in the south German rescue services. The use of mesh devices might possibly improve patient outcomes, even if clinical studies are still lacking. Nebulizer treatment differs between the federal states. A comprehensive implementation of SOP for nebulization treatment might support this process and could increase the application frequency and the perceived safety of nebulization during emergencies. A better training of paramedic personnel could improve the knowledge of aerosols as a treatment option for emergency patients and help to classify the advantages and disadvantages of the different aerosol generators available.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsNebulizers and VaporizersAdministration, InhalationAerosolsEquipment DesignHumansParticle SizeAerosolsDrug nebulizationEmergency drugsNebulizer typePrehospital emergency careStandard operating procedures

Identifiers

PMID34156480
PMCPMC8218572
OpenAlexW3174277467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.