ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology2022
Aerosol-generating procedures, how best did anesthesiologists use available personal protective equipment during early COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care center of southern India? A prospective cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Anesthesiologists are involved in high-risk procedures for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 like aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). The present study was conducted to assess the compliance toward the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and proposed modifications in anesthesia techniques to prevent dissemination of the virus among healthcare workers. Material and Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and included all elective surgeries involving AGPs inside operation theatres and remote areas. Participants were anesthesia consultants and trainees. Trained anesthesia technicians observed and documented all the AGPs and data entry with analysis was done using EPI Data 3.1, SPSS 21.0. Descriptive statistics were reported using mean ± SD for continuous variables. Results: Preoperative COVID-19 test was done in 96.3% of patients. Most (74.8%) of the AGPs were performed by consultants. In our study, compliance for N95 masks usage and hand hygiene was found to be 99.2% and 55.9%, respectively. Avoidance of crowding was followed in only 38.9% during intubation. To contain the aerosol-based spread of virus, modification of anesthesia practices like acrylic boxes (6.4%), plastic sheets (5.5%), video laryngoscopy (39%), rapid sequence intubation (RSI) (42.7%), and 59.3% of deep extubation were incorporated. Conclusion: In our study, we found satisfactory compliance toward usage of N95 masks alone, whereas compliance toward other available PPE and modification in anesthesia practice was found to be unsatisfactory.
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.