ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2023
Efficiency, limitations, and familiarization of a novel negative pressure aerosol box for intubation: a simulation-based randomized crossover study.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Portable, Foldable Negative-Pressure Aerosol-Containment System (FNPACS) for Aerosol Control During Aerosol-Generating Procedures.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A New Method Proposed for Analyzing Airflow Dynamics in Negative Pressure Isolation Chambers Using Particle Image Velocimetry.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing Aerosol Mitigation in Medical Procedures: A CFD-Informed Respiratory Barrier Enclosure.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to introduce a novel negative pressure aerosol box (Carrycure Isolator) and to test its efficiency and limitations, with the hope of suggesting improvements and further directions.
methodsA novel aerosol box (Carrycure Isolator) was invented. A single-center, randomized, crossover simulation study of 28 emergency medicine physicians was designed. Three trials of each participant using an intubation manikin were conducted, including intubation without the aerosol box (trial A), intubation with the aerosol box (trial B), and intubation with the aerosol box after familiarization (trial C). The primary endpoint was the time to intubation. The secondary endpoints were first-attempt success, number of attempts, percentage of glottic opening score, and Cormack-Lehane view. Collected data were statistically analyzed for their significance.
resultsThe median times to intubation of trials A, B, and C were 30.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 28.0-40.0 seconds), 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-75.5 seconds), and 34.0 seconds (IQR, 30.5-47.0 seconds), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed that the time to intubation in trial B was significantly longer than that in trial A (P<0.05), while that the time to intubation in trial C was significantly shorter than that in trial B (P<0.05).
resultsconcerning secondary endpoints showed similar patterns. Participants reported performing intubation with Carrycure Isolator to be relatively difficult, necessitating significant arm movement and view restrictions while increasing their time to intubation.
conclusionPhysicians took a longer time to intubate a manikin using the Carrycure Isolator, a novel negative pressure aerosol box. However, the time was improved after a period of familiarization.
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.