ArticlePloS one2023
Croatian national audit on videolaryngoscopes and alternative intubation devices in the era of COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVideolaryngoscopy (VL) is the recommended strategy for airway management in COVID-19 patients and guidelines recommends that all anesthesiologists should be trained to use and have immediate access to the device. However, the availability of VL in hospitals and its use may vary, as well as the choice of the device and necessary training. Our primary aim was to investigate data on availability of VL in Croatia, its use, the choice of the device and its implementation, with special consideration of COVID-19 management. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic survey was sent to all Croatian hospitals that have anesthesiology service available. The survey was designed to examine data on availability and use of VL with special consideration of COVID-19 wards. The survey was conducted between 1.03.2021 and 30.08.2021.
resultsResponse rate was 83%. VL was available in 86% of hospitals and the best supplied areas were intensive care units, general surgery and gynecology/obstetrics. The most common VL devices were Bonfils, C-MAC and C-MAC D-blade. The choice of VL was mainly based on centralized hospital procurement and informal introduction was found to be the most frequent training method. The VL was mainly used in Croatian hospitals in cases of difficult airway or as a backup method after failed intubation. Only 16% of hospitals reported regular use in everyday practice. Even though, VL was available in 64% of COVID-19 wards, only 21% of hospitals reported routine use.
conclusionAlthough VL is available in the majority of Croatian hospitals, its use is still mainly restricted to difficult airway scenarios. Use of VL in COVID-19 management is also low and education on the method is still mainly informal. Based upon our results better implementation in practice should be targeted, as well as formal skill trainings especially regarding COVID-19 care.
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.