ArticleCureus2024
Predictors of Emergency Interventions in Acute Airway Obstructive Diseases: A Retrospective Single-Center Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe factors related to emergency intervention for internal medicine conditions leading to airway obstruction are not clear.
objectiveWe aimed to identify factors associated with emergency interventions in acute airway obstructive diseases (AAODs).
methodsThis is a retrospective observational single-center study. We defined AAODs as acute epiglottitis, peritonsillar abscess, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, oral floor abscess, neck abscess, angioedema, Lemierre's syndrome, hemoptysis, and airway foreign body. We compared the group required airway interventions (intubation, cricothyroidotomy, tracheostomy) with the group treated conservatively admitted to Yokosuka Kyosai Hospital, Japan (tertiary referral hospital) for AAOD between April 2012 and March 2022.
resultsTwo hundred fifty-five patients were admitted for AAOD, 104 patients were excluded, and 150 patients (39 intervention group, 111 conservative group) were analyzed. Univariate analysis revealed significant age differences (74(61-78) vs 67(31-76), p<0.01), Glasgow Coma Scale (15(14-15) vs 15(15-15), p<0.01), respiratory rate (24(20-30) vs 20(16-22), p<0.01), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) (6(3-9) vs 3(1-5), p<0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (2(1-4) vs 0(0-2), p<0.01), stridor (26% vs 2%, p<0.01), dysphagia (41% vs 21%, p=0.02), drooling (18% vs 3%, p<0.01), frequent suctions (6% vs 0%, p<0.01), airway examination abnormalities (AEAs) (69% vs 32%, p<0.01) and diagnosis (p<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated AEA (OR=9.41, 95%CI 3.66-24.2), upper airway diseases (OR=5.74, 95%CI 2.12-15.6), and SOFA score (OR=2.88, 95%CI 1.06-7.83) were predictors for intervention. However, the sensitivity and specificity of AEA were 0.69 (95%CI 0.52-0.83) and 0.69 (95%CI 0.59-0.77), respectively.
conclusionsAEAs were associated with a high risk of airway interventions in AAOD. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity were insufficient.
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.