ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2019
Perioperative laryngospasm management in paediatrics: a high-fidelity simulation study.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2019. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Paediatric anaesthesia is a very specialised domain lacking training during the traditional curriculum. The laryngospasm is a stressful and life-threatening event that requires immediate action. The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of knowledge of a simple algorithm on the management of laryngospasm by trainee anaesthetists and nurse anaesthetists during a high-fidelity simulation session. Method: Residents in paediatric anaesthesia and training nurse anaesthetists with similar curriculum were randomly allocated to undergo a simulation session of laryngospasm with the help of a simple algorithm administered to them 5 min before the simulation session (group A) or as taught in their curriculum (group C). The primary endpoint was the assessment score of laryngospasm management using 10 technical items (validated in experienced paediatric anaesthetists). Secondary endpoints were: the non-technical skills using the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) score and timing of critical management steps. The correlation between the technical and non-technical scores was also studied. Data are expressed as median (range). Results: 72 participants (18 teams in each group) were included in this study. There was a statistically significant difference between group A and C on the primary endpoint: 8.5 (2-10) vs 5 (2-8), respectively (p<0.0001). There was also a significant difference between the two groups for the ANTS score 12 (7-16) vs 8 (6-12), respectively (p<0.0001). No difference in timing of management was observed. Finally, there was a strong correlation between the technical skills and all the non-technical skills categories in the A group. Conclusion: A simple algorithm improved the technical and non-technical skills of students during the management of a simulated laryngospasm.
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.