Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359485›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022

Evaluation of aerosol box use for ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein cannulation in patients with COVID-19: A short-term randomised study.

Gokhan Sertcakacilar, Sunkar Kaya Bayrak, Yaser Pektas, Ipek Bostanci, Gunes Ozlem Yildiz, Mehmet Suleyman Sabaz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk of bias in published randomised controlled trials.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    Article
  2. Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gokhan SertcakacilarCleveland Clinic, Department of Outcomes Research, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Sunkar Kaya BayrakDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, School of Medicine, Taksim Acibadem Hospital, Turkey.
Yaser PektasDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, University Of Health Sciences, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Turkey.
Ipek BostanciDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, University Of Health Sciences, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Turkey.
Gunes Ozlem YildizDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, University Of Health Sciences, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Turkey.
Mehmet Suleyman SabazDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Pendik Education and Research Hospital, Marmara University, Turkey.
Bakırköy Dr.Sadi Konuk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRAcıbadem Adana Hospital · TRMarmara University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care workers are at a high risk of infection from aerosols. In this study, we compared the ease of using the aerosol box (AB) with the traditional method during internal jugular vein cannulation attempts (IJVCA). Methods: The study included 40 patients with COVID-19 who required central venous catheterisation during treatment in the ward. The patients were randomly allocated to one of the two protective equipment (PPE) groups and then randomly assigned to one of the five anaesthesiologists with at least 5 years of experience. Group P and A had both PPE and AB used, whereas Group P included patients where PPE was used alone. The physicians completed a survey after performing the procedure to evaluate the use of the AB. Results: The preparation for the procedure and procedure durations were observed to be statistically longer in Group P and A ( Conclusion: The IJVCA procedures were faster and easier and had greater satisfaction for physicians when the AB was not used. Also, the high complication rate, including carotid artery punctures and disruption of sterility and PPE, albeit not statistically significant, has clinical implications. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of ABs for IJVCA.

Indexed as

Aerosolscatheterisationcentral venousCOVID-19personal protective equipmentSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35359485
PMCPMC8963234
OpenAlexW4214478995

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.