ArticlePloS one2024
Prehospital emergency anesthesia: A single-center retrospective analysis of guideline adherence and unexpected incidents.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Telemedicine for prehospital respiratory emergencies in a retrospective quality analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Although prehospital emergency anesthesia (PHEA), with a specific focus on intubation attempts, is frequently studied in prehospital emergency care, there is a gap in the knowledge on aspects related to adherence to PHEA guidelines. This study investigates adherence to the "Guidelines for Prehospital Emergency Anesthesia in Adults" with regard to the induction of PHEA, including the decision making, rapid sequence induction, preoxygenation, standard monitoring, intubation attempts, adverse events, and administration of appropriate medications and their side effects. This retrospective study examined PHEA interventions from 01/01/2020 to 12/31/2021 in the city of Aachen, Germany. The inclusion criteria were adult patients who met the indication criteria for the PHEA. Data were obtained from emergency medical protocols. A total of 127 patients were included in this study. All the patients met the PHEA indication criteria. Despite having a valid indication, 29 patients did not receive the PHEA. 98 patients were endotracheally intubated. For these patients, monitoring had conformed to the guidelines. The medications were used according to the guidelines. A significant increase in oxygen saturation was reported after anesthesia induction (p < 0.001). The patients were successfully intubated endotracheally on the third attempt. Guideline adherence was maintained in terms of execution of PHEA, rapid sequence induction, preoxygenation, monitoring, selection, and administration of relevant medications. Emergency physicians demonstrated the capacity to effectively respond to cardiorespiratory events. Further investigations are needed on the group of patients who did not receive PHEA despite meeting the criteria. The underlying causes of decision making in these cases need to be evaluated in the future.
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.