Trial reportThe Journal of emergency medicine2021
Comparison of the Efficiency and Usability of Aerosol Box and Intubation Tent on Intubation of a Manikin Using Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized Crossover Study.
Trial report in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aerosol Box Use in Reducing Health Care Worker Contamination During Airway Procedures (AIRWAY Study): A Simulation-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- A Portable, Foldable Negative-Pressure Aerosol-Containment System (FNPACS) for Aerosol Control During Aerosol-Generating Procedures.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficiency, limitations, and familiarization of a novel negative pressure aerosol box for intubation: a simulation-based randomized crossover study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Video-Assisted Stylet Intubation with a Plastic Sheet Barrier, a Safe and Simple Technique for Tracheal Intubation of COVID-19 Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Performance of Aerosol Boxes for Endotracheal Intubation during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Systematic Review.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aerosol box and intubation tent are improvised barrier-enclosure devices developed during the novel coronavirus pandemic to protect health care workers from aerosol transmission.
objectiveUsing time to intubation as a crude proxy, we aimed to compare the efficiency and usability of the aerosol box and intubation tent in a simulated manikin.
methodsThis was a single-center, randomized, crossover manikin study involving 28 participants (9 anesthetists, 16 emergency physicians, and 3 intensivists). Each participant performed rapid sequence intubations in a random sequence of three different scenarios: 1) no device use; 2) aerosol box; 3) intubation tent. We compared the time to intubation between different scenarios.
resultsThe median total intubation time with no device use, aerosol box, and intubation tent were 23.7 s (interquartile range [IQR] 19.4-28.4 s), 30.9 s (IQR 24.1-52.5 s), and 26.0 s (IQR 22.1-30.8 s), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed a significantly longer intubation time using the aerosol box compared with no device use (p < 0.001) and compared with the intubation tent (p < 0.001). The difference between the intubation tent and no device use was not significant. The first-pass intubation success rate did not differ between the groups. Only aerosol box use had resulted in breaches of personal protective equipment. Participants considered intubation with the intubation tent more favorable than the aerosol box.
conclusionsThe intubation tent seems to have a better barrier-enclosure design than the aerosol box, with a reasonable balance between efficiency and usability. Further evaluation of its efficacy in preventing aerosol dispersal and in human studies are warranted prior to recommendation of widespread adoption.
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.