ArticleAEM education and training2025
Randomized crossover trial comparing two open surgical cricothyrotomy techniques.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. 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.
- Development of an Obese Airway Model for Front of Neck Access Training and Research.AEM education and training · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Emergency cricothyrotomy is a life-saving procedure that is performed in "can't intubate can't oxygenate" scenario. A recent study comparing an open surgical technique using a bougie and endotracheal tube (ETT) with a Seldinger technique using the Cook Melker catheter showed that the open technique was quicker but suggested that the open technique could be quicker if using the Melker catheter instead of a bougie and ETT. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical technique using bougie and ETT with an open technique using the Melker catheter. Methods: A randomized crossover trial was conducted involving emergency physicians (EPs) and trainees. Participants performed both techniques in succession on an airway model, with the technique performed first being randomized for each participant. The primary outcome was time to first insufflation of the artificial lung. Participants also indicated their comfort with each technique on a 5-point Likert scale and which technique they preferred. Results: Seventeen EPs and 19 trainees participated. The Melker catheter technique was performed quicker with a mean time of 29.2 s versus 44.3 s for the bougie/ETT technique (difference 15.1 s, 95% confidence interval 10.8-19.4 s). The Melker catheter was most preferred by participants (61% vs. 39%). There was no significant difference in the comfort ratings between each technique. Time to model lung insufflation was not affected by training level or time since last performed a cricothyrotomy, either real or simulated. Conclusions: The Melker catheter was quicker to perform and the most preferred by participants.
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.