Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022
Evaluation of the conventional and modified aerosol boxes during tracheal intubation in normal and difficult airways: a randomized, crossover, manikin simulation study.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate conventional and modified aerosol boxes in terms of intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance between the laryngoscopist and patient during tracheal intubation in simulated patients with normal and difficult airways. Sixteen anesthesiologists performed tracheal intubations with direct laryngoscope or three different videolaryngoscopes (McGRATH MAC videolaryngoscope, C-MAC videolaryngoscope, and Pentax-AWS) without an aerosol box or with a conventional or a modified aerosol boxes in simulated manikins with normal and difficult airways. Intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance during tracheal intubation were recorded. Compared to no aerosol box, the use of a conventional aerosol box significantly increased intubation time in both normal and difficult airways (Bonferroni-corrected P-value (P
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.