Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37222766›Full record

ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2023

[Update 2022: interdisciplinary statement on airway management with supraglottic airway devices in pediatric emergency medicine-The laryngeal mask is and remains state of the art : Joint statement of the Institute for Emergency Medicine and Medicine Management (INM), the University Clinic Munich, LMU Munich, Germany, the Working Group for Pediatric Critical Care and Emergency Medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society for Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI), the Medical Directors of Emergency Medical Services in Bavaria (ÄLRD), the Scientific Working Group for Pediatric Anesthesia (WAKKA) of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI), the Scientific Working Group for Emergency Medicine of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Society of Neonatology and Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (GNPI)].

J Güth, P Jung, A Schiele, B Urban, A Parsch, B Matsche, C Eich, K Becke-Jakob, B Landsleitner, S G Russo and 4 more

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

J GüthInstitut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, München, Deutschland.
P JungSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland.
A SchieleÄrztliche Leitung, Rettungsdienst Bayern (ÄLRD Bayern), München, Deutschland.
B UrbanInstitut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, München, Deutschland.
A ParschÄrztliche Leitung, Rettungsdienst Bayern (ÄLRD Bayern), München, Deutschland.
B MatscheÄrztliche Leitung, Rettungsdienst Bayern (ÄLRD Bayern), München, Deutschland.
C EichSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland.
K Becke-JakobWissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Kinderanästhesie (WAKKA), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin (DGAI), Nürnberg, Deutschland.
B LandsleitnerSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland.
S G RussoWissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Kinderanästhesie (WAKKA), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin (DGAI), Nürnberg, Deutschland.
M BernhardWissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin (DGAI), Nürnberg, Deutschland.
B HossfeldSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland.
M OlivieriSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland.
F HoffmannSektion Pädiatrische Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI), Berlin, Deutschland. florian.hoffmann@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin · DEDeutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin · DEHochschule für den öffentlichen Dienst in Bayern · DELMU Klinikum · DEGerman Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine · DESociety of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAirway management with supraglottic airway devices (SGA) in life-threatening emergencies in children is increasingly being used. Different specifications of laryngeal masks (LM) and the laryngeal tube (LT) are commonly used devices for this purpose. We present a literature review and interdisciplinary consensus statement of different societies on the use of SGA in pediatric emergency medicine. MATERIAL AND

methodsLiterature review in the PubMed database and classification of studies according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Levels and consensus finding within the group of authors.

resultsThe evidence for successful applications of the various types of LM is significantly higher than for LT application. Reported smaller series of successful applications of LT are currently limited to selected research groups and centers. Especially for children below 10 kg body weight there currently exists insufficient evidence for the successful application of the LT and therefore its routine use cannot be recommended. SGAs used for emergencies should have a gastric drainage possibility. DISCUSSION: Considering the scientific data and the large clinical experience with the LM in medical routine and emergency situations in children currently only the LM can be recommended for alternative (i.e., non-intubation) emergency airway management in children. If alternative airway management is part of a local emergency strategy, the LM should be provided in all pediatric sizes (1, 1½, 2, 2½, 3) for out of hospital use and in hospital emergency use and all users should regularly be trained in its application.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency MedicineLaryngeal MasksNeonatologyPediatric Emergency MedicinePhysician ExecutivesAirway ManagementChildCritical CareEmergenciesGermanyHumansIntubation, IntratrachealUniversitiesAirway managementChildrenLaryngeal maskLaryngeal tubeSupraglottic airway device

Identifiers

PMID37222766
OpenAlexW4377940021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.