SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024
Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Safer prehospital anaesthesia: updated guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists.Anaesthesia · 2026Guideline
- Survival and cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Prehospital airway and ventilatory management: a collaborative and narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Airway management skills and devices on Italian helicopter emergency medical service: a national survey.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Contemporary issues in pediatric prehospital airway management.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Queryome: Orchestrating Retrieval, Reasoning, and Synthesis across Biomedical Literature.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Confined space airway management: a narrative review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Management and outcome of patients with cardiac arrest after avalanche accidents in the Swiss Alps: A retrospective analysis.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Development of a Consensus-Based Checklist for Physician-Performed Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation in Japan: A Two-Round Delphi Study.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793).
resultsA total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s).
conclusionFurther research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area.
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.