Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34188622›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia

Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study.

Ashish Kannaujia, Rudrashish Haldar, Rafat Shamim, Prabhakar Mishra, Anil Agarwal

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashish KannaujiaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rudrashish HaldarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rafat ShamimDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Prabhakar MishraDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Anil AgarwalDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsProtection of anaesthesiologists from contaminated aerosols of COVID 19 patients during endotracheal intubation has spurred the development of barrier devices like aerosol boxes and clear transparent plastic sheets and usage of videolaryngoscopes in COVID 19 patients. However, the efficiency, feasibility and difficulties faced by anaesthesiologist while performing endotracheal intubations under barrier devices require scientific validation. This manikin-based pilot study aims to assess the laryngoscopic performances of experienced anaesthesiologists under two different barrier enclosures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 53 anaesthesiologists (14 Consultants and 39 Senior Residents) who were undergoing an airway training module as a part of preparedness for handling the COVID 19 pandemic were recruited. Using an aerosol box over a manikin, the participants attempted intubation using a Glidescope Videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscopes (GA and MA Groups). Subsequently, intubation was attempted under a transparent plastic sheet using both laryngoscopes (GP and MP groups). Time required for intubation, first pass success rates, subjective ease of intubation and the feedback obtained from the participants were recorded and analysed.

resultsTime required for accomplishing successful intubation was 38.55 ± 12.16 seconds, 26.58 ± 5.73 seconds, 46.89 ± 15.23 seconds and 37.26 ± 8.71 seconds for GA, MA, GP and MP groups respectively. Time for intubation and difficulty (VAS) was least for Macintosh group with aerosol box (MA) and maximum time was taken in Glidescope group with transparent polythene drape (GP). First attempt success rate for Glidescope groups (GP and GA) were 100% and in MA and MP group was 98% and 96% respectively. Restriction in hand movement and stylet removal were the major difficulties reported.

conclusionLonger intubation times were observed while using Glidescope Videolaryngoscopes with either of the two barrier devices in place compared to Macintosh laryngoscopes.

Indexed as

COVID -19laryngoscopesmanikinpersonal protective equipmentpilot studyvideolaryngoscope

Identifiers

PMID34188622
PMCPMC8191263
OpenAlexW3142342491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.