ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
A prospective randomised simulation trial comparing our novel AIR-BOX to standard airway equipment storage modalities.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is little evidence guiding equipment handling during emergency endotracheal intubations (EEI). Available evidence and current practice are either outdated, anecdotal or focused on difficult-not emergency-intubation. In this study, we describe and evaluate our equipment handling unit: the AIR-BOX. Methods: This is a proof-of-concept, prospective, randomised simulation trial. A convenience sample of 50 airway course participants voluntarily underwent randomisation: 21 to the AIR-BOX group, 14 to the intubation box group, and 15 to the crash cart group. The volunteers were asked to intubate a manikin using the equipment from the storage unit of their randomisation. Outcome measures included time-to-readiness, time-to-intubation, first-pass success, and subjective operator experience. Results: The mean time-to-readiness was 67.2 s with the AIR-BOX, 84.6 s with the intubation box, and 115 s with the crash cart. The mean time-to-intubation was 105 s with the AIR-BOX, 127 s with the intubation box and 167 s with the crash cart. A statistically significant difference was achieved between the AIR-BOX and the crash cart. No statistically significant difference was found between the three groups with regard to first-pass success or the time between intubation readiness and intubation. Conclusions: This study supports the AIR-BOX as a viable tool that can improve and simplify access to emergency intubating equipment. It also opens doors for multiple future innovations that can positively impact equipment handling practices. Future studies can focus on assessing whether applying the AIR-BOX will yield a clinically significant impact on patient outcomes.
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.