Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
Effects of different forced-air warming systems on the core temperature of patients: a manikin and multi-center clinical study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of forced-air warming (FAW) blankets is widely recognized for preventing shivering and hypothermia in patients under general anesthesia. Various types of products are currently available for hospitals, and we have conducted a preliminary evaluation of insulation equipment based on expert opinions and initial parameters. However, we lack real-world experiments and accurate clinical data to validate these parameters and the accuracy of our decision-making results. This study aims to confirm the effectiveness of different FAW systems by assessing the thermal protection and operational characteristics of the equipment in both experimental and clinical settings, thereby enhancing our evaluation database.
methodsIn the manikin test, we conducted six tests including heat distribution and heating rate, heater outlet temperature stability, etc. In the clinical study, patients were randomly assigned to four groups [Group A (Bair Hugger Therapy, 3 M, St. Paul, MN, USA; 63500); Group B (EQUATOR
resultsIn the manikin test, the observed results of the experimental parameters (heat distribution, air pressure difference, and hole observation test) for Group A are superior to those of the other groups. In the clinical study, although the mean perioperative core body temperature remained above 36 °C across all groups [Group A: 36.31 ± 0.04; Group B: 36.26 ± 0.06; Group C: 36.17 ± 0.03; Group D: 36.25 ± 0.05], patients in Group A maintained higher temperatures compared to the other groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionsAmong patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer with general anesthesia, all four FAW systems effectively prevented perioperative hypothermia. However, the system in Group A minimized heat loss more effectively than the others, providing superior thermal protection.
trial registrationChiCTR2200065394, 03/11/2022.
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.