ArticleScientific reports2024
National survey on the current status of airway management in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Difficult Airway Assessment: The Current State of Knowledge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current airway management practice among Swiss anesthesiologists : Results of a national survey.Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Article
- Use, perceptions, and barriers to supraglottic airway devices in Brazil: a national cross-sectional survey with global implications.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Apparently, understanding airway management status may help to reduce risk and improve clinical practice. Given these facts, our team conducted a second survey on the current status of airway management for mainland China following our 2016 national airway survey. The national survey was conducted from November 7 to November 28, 2022. An electronic survey was sent to the New Youth Anesthesia Forum, where Chinese anesthesiologists completed the questionnaire via WeChat. A total of 3783 respondents completed the survey, with a response rate of 72.14%. So far, in 2022, 34.84% of anesthesiologists canceled or delayed surgery at least once due to difficult airway. For the anticipated difficult airway management, 66.11% of physicians would choose awake intubation under sedation and topical anesthesia, while the percentage seeking help has decreased compared to the 2016 survey. When encountering an emergency, 74.20% of respondents prefer to use the needle cricothyrotomy, albeit less than a quarter have actually performed it. Anesthesiologists with difficult airway training experience reached 72.96%, with a significant difference in participation between participants in Tier 3 hospitals and those in other levels of hospitals (P < 0.001). The videolaryngoscope, laryngeal mask, and flexible intubation scope were equipped at 97.18%, 95.96%, and 62.89%, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of brain damage or death caused by difficult airways was significantly decreased. The study may be the best reference for understanding the current status of airway management in China, revealing the current advancements and deficiencies. The future focus of airway management remains on training and education.
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.