ArticleThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne2023
A prospective survey of veterinary anesthesia equipment in Alberta, Canada, using a standardized checkout procedure.
Article in The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Veterinary students do not need an elephantine memory: Effectiveness of an anesthetic pre-induction checklist.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In both human and veterinary medicine, it is recommended that an anesthetic machine checkout procedure (preuse check) be performed daily, with some items tested before each case, to confirm safe function and the check results recorded. Objective: The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate anesthetic machines in private veterinary clinics in Alberta (Canada) using a standardized checkout procedure. Animals and procedures: One-hundred consecutive anesthetic machines were assessed. For each item of the checkout procedure, a "pass," "fail," or "not applicable" score was awarded. "Not applicable" indicated an item that could not be evaluated. Results: Few machines (10%) evaluated had a secondary oxygen supply, no machines had an oxygen supply pressure alarm, and leaks were identified in 31 and 17% of rebreathing and non-rebreathing systems, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of machines did not have a high-pressure circuit alarm, 86% of machines were attached to an active scavenging system, although it was improperly connected in 56% of cases, and only 2% of machines were accompanied by a checkout log. Conclusion and clinical relevance: There was widespread variation in anesthetic machine standards and function, highlighting the value of performing a regular machine checkout procedure in creating a foundation for safe anesthetic practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36733657PMC9847401W4319058255What 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.