Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36126076›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Big data: Airway management at a university hospital over 16 years; a retrospective analysis.

Regina Hummel, Daniel Wollschläger, Hans-Jürgen Baldering, Kristin Engelhard, Eva Wittenmeier, Katharina Epp, Nina Pirlich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Regina HummelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Daniel WollschlägerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Hans-Jürgen BalderingDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Kristin EngelhardDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Eva WittenmeierDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Katharina EppDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Nina PirlichDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7741-2885

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLittle is known about the current practice of airway management in Germany and its development over the last decades. The present study was, therefore, designed to answer the following questions. Which airway management procedures have been performed over the last 16 years and how has the frequency of these procedures changed over time? Is there a relationship between patient characteristics or surgical specialisation and the type of airway management performed?

methodsIn the present study, we used our in-house data acquisition and accounting system to retrospectively analyse airway management data for all patients who underwent a surgical or medical procedure with anaesthesiological care at our tertiary care facility over the past 16 years. 340,748 airway management procedures were analysed by type of procedure, medical/surgical specialty, and type of device used. Logistic regression was used to identify trends over time.

resultsOral intubation was the most common technique over 16 years (65.7%), followed by supraglottic airway devices (18.1%), nasal intubation (7.5%), mask ventilation (1.6%), tracheal cannula (1.3%), double lumen tube (0.7%), and jet ventilation (0.6%). On average, the odds ratio of using supraglottic airway devices increased by 17.0% per year (OR per year = 1.072, 95% CI = 1.071-1.088) while oral intubation rates decreased. In 2005, supraglottic airway devices were used in about 10% of all airway management procedures. Until 2020, this proportion steadily increased by 27%. Frequency of oral intubation on the other hand decreased and was about 75% in 2005 and 53% in 2020. Over time, second-generation supraglottic airway devices were used more frequently than first-generation supraglottic airway devices. While second-generation devices made up about 9% of all supraglottic airway devices in 2010, in 2020 they represented a proportion of 82%. The use of fibreoptic intubation increased over time in otorhinolaryngology and dental, oral, and maxillofacial surgery, but showed no significant trends over the entire 16-year period.

conclusionOur data represent the first large-scale evaluation of airway management procedures over a long time. There was a significant upward trend in the use of supraglottic airway devices, with an increase in the use of second-generation masks while a decrease in oral intubations was observed.

Indexed as

Airway ManagementIntubation, IntratrachealFiber Optic TechnologyHospitals, UniversityHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36126076
PMCPMC9488754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.