ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2023
Usability testing of a blind intubation device for intubation novices: a randomized crossover simulation 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 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.
- Usability Testing of a Hair Apposition Device for Scalp Laceration: A Manikin Simulation Study.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA new blind intubation device (BID) has been developed for endotracheal intubation. This study aimed to test the usability of the BID in comparison to direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL) with inexperienced healthcare providers for endotracheal intubation.
methodsThis was a randomized crossover simulation study. Participants who had conducted fewer than five live intubation sessions were included in the study. The manikin simulation was conducted using a Laerdal trainer airway manikin. Participants performed intubation using all three devices, DL, VL, and BID. The primary outcome was intubation success rate in the first pass the secondary outcome was intubation time to first ventilation, and the tertiary outcome was dental injury.
resultsA total of 45 healthcare workers who were novices in intubation participated in this study, including 13 physicians (interns), 14 emergency medical technicians, and 18 nurses. The intubation success rates in the first pass with BID, DL, and VL were 93.3%, 91.1%, and 97.8%, respectively (P=0.53). The intubation times to first ventilation with BID, DL, and VL were 13.15±6.16, 19.07±7.71, and 17.31±6.57 seconds, respectively (P<0.01). The proportions of dental injuries associated with BID, DL, and VL were 0% for physicians; 28.6%, 14.3%, and 0%, respectively for emergency medical technicians; and 27.8%, 11.1%, and 16.7%, respectively for nurses.
conclusionWe performed a pilot study to test the usability of the new BID. There was no significant difference in intubation success rate in the first pass among BID, DL, and VL. The intubation time to first ventilation was shorter with the BID compared to DL and VL.
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.