Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34453552›Full record

ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2022

Current practice of German anesthesiologists in airway management : Results of a national online survey.

Nina Pirlich, Matthias Dutz, Eva Wittenmeier, Marc Kriege, Nicole Didion, Thomas Ott, Tim Piepho

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nina PirlichDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. pirlich@uni-mainz.de.
Matthias DutzDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Eva WittenmeierDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Marc KriegeDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Nicole DidionDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Thomas OttDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Tim PiephoDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Brothers of Mercy Hospital, Trier, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a worldwide consensus among experts that guidelines and algorithms on airway management contribute to improved patient safety in anesthesia. The present study aimed to determine the current practice of airway management of German anesthesiologists and assess the safety gap, defined as the difference between observed and recommended practice, amongst these practitioners.

objectiveTo determine the effect of implementing the guidelines on airway management practice in Germany amongst anesthesiologists and identify potential safety gaps.

methodsA survey was conducted in September 2019 by contacting all registered members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) via email. The participants were asked about their personal and institutional background, adherence to recommendations of the current German S1 guidelines and availability of airway devices.

resultsA total of 1862 DGAI members completed the questionnaire (response rate 17%). The main outcome was that anesthesiologists mostly adhered to the guidelines, yet certain recommendations, particularly pertaining to specifics of preoxygenation and training, showed a safety gap. More than 90% of participants had a video laryngoscope and half had performed more than 25 awake intubations using a flexible endoscope; however, only 81% had a video laryngoscope with a hyperangulated blade. An estimated 16% of all intubations were performed with a video laryngoscope, and 1 in 4 participants had performed awake intubation with it. Nearly all participants had cared for patients with suspected difficult airways. Half of the participants had already faced a "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" (CICO) situation and one in five had to perform an emergency front of neck access (eFONA) at least once. In this case, almost two thirds used puncture-based techniques and one third scalpel-based techniques.

conclusionCurrent practice of airway management showed overall adherence to the current German guidelines on airway management, yet certain areas need to be improved.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyAirway ManagementAnesthesiologistsHumansIntubation, IntratrachealDifficult airwayEducationGuidelinesPatient safetyVideo laryngoscopy

Identifiers

PMID34453552
PMCPMC9763150
OpenAlexW3195918525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.