ArticleRespiratory care2023
Feasibility of a Multi-Center Respiratory Therapist Endotracheal Intubation Study.
Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roles of anesthesia assistants within the code blue team at in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrests: A retrospective analysis.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025Article
- Endotracheal Intubation Outside the Operating Room: Year in Review 2023.Respiratory care · 2024Review
- Academic Output of Fellows of the American Association for Respiratory Care.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- How to Write an Effective Discussion.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Emergency Airway Management: The Turf War Is Over.Respiratory care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory therapists (RTs) have historically performed safe and effective intubations, yet there are limited multi-center data assessing their intubation performance. Multi-center data can be used to compare RT intubation performance to that of other professions and identify quality improvement opportunities at hospitals where RTs perform intubation. We aimed to explore the feasibility of a multi-center collaborative to evaluate RT intubation outcomes.
methodsA data collection tool was developed by the authors and implemented at two institutions. Following institutional review board approval at each center and completion of data-use sharing agreements, data were collected between May 25, 2020-April 30, 2022, and combined for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to compare overall success rate, first-attempt success rate, adverse events (AEs), and type of laryngoscopy.
resultsThere were a total of 689 intubation courses where RTs made an attempt, 363 from center A and 326 from center B. Center A captured 85% of all RT intubation courses, and center B captured 63%. Overall, RTs were successful in 98% of attempts. RTs made 86% of initial attempts. The most common indications for intubation were cardiac arrest (42%) and respiratory failure (31%). Videolaryngoscopy was used during 65% of initial attempts and was associated with higher first-attempt success rate, higher overall success rate, and fewer AEs. Airway-related adverse event rate was 8.7%; physiologic AE rate was 16%, and desaturation rate was 11%.
conclusionsA collaborative examining RTs intubation performance was successfully initiated at 2 separate facilities. Intubations performed by RTs had a high success rate, with AE rates comparable to published results from other types of providers.
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.