ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care2025
SAFE anaesthesia for patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration: A nationwide survey.
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anaesthesiologic management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration: a Swiss consensus statement.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- To take a different approach: Can large language models provide knowledge related to respiratory aspiration?Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration varies widely. However, data on actual management, decision-driving factors and controversial issues remain elusive.
objectiveWe aimed to comprehensively review the management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration and identify controversies among anaesthesia professionals.
designNational interprofessional survey.
settingAll anaesthesia departments in Switzerland.
participantsThe survey was distributed electronically to all members of the Swiss Society of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, members of the Swiss Interest Group for Anaesthesia Nursing and all department heads in Switzerland.
interventionNone.
main outcome measuresConsensus and controversies in clinical practice and management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration.
resultsA total of 684 respondents were included in the final analysis (59 department heads, 366 consultants, 99 registrars, 160 nurse anaesthetists). The response rate from physicians was 47%. Consensus (>80% agreement or disagreement) was reached on 9/12 (75%) questions regarding preparation for rapid sequence induction (RSI), 6/13 (46%) regarding RSI practice and 3/8 (38%) regarding management of aspiration incidents. Major controversies included high-flow pre-oxygenation (55% agreement), the validity of modified RSI in adults (52% agreement), the primary use of video-laryngoscope (76% agreement) and management of apparent regurgitation. Subjective factors such as clinical presentation were considered more important than objective factors such as medical history, comorbidities or gastric ultrasound.
conclusionAcross a wide range of experience and professional groups, we found a strong consensus on the indication and performance of 'traditional' RSI. However, clinical decision-making still relies heavily on subjective impressions, while newer risk stratification and management techniques remain controversial.
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.