ReviewAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2025
Evidence-based Emergency Tracheal Intubation.
Review in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the Denver Critical Illness Intubation Entrustment (D-CITE) Tool.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Application of the PDCA cycle management in quality improvement of endotracheal intubation in emergency department among standardised training residents.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The hemodynamics of tracheal intubation in critically ill patients: a narrative review.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
- Two case reports of soft palate perforation as a complication of video laryngoscope-assisted tracheal intubation: mechanism analysis and preventative strategies.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Application value and safety advantages of remimazolam tosilate in sedation for emergency rescue endotracheal intubation.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Standardized Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) Improves Effectiveness and Safety in Mixed Physician and Paramedic Hungarian EMS.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reply to HyderAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Emergency Intubation: A High-Stakes Procedure with Critical Gaps in Understanding Team Impact.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Millions of critically ill adults undergo tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU each year, nearly 40% of whom experience hypoxemia, hypotension, or cardiac arrest during the procedure. Over the last two decades, a series of randomized trials have examined which of the tools, techniques, devices, and drugs used to perform emergency tracheal intubation improve outcomes and which are ineffective or harmful. Results of these trials have demonstrated that preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and administration of positive pressure ventilation between induction and laryngoscopy prevent hypoxemia during intubation, video laryngoscopy facilitates successful intubation on the first attempt and may prevent esophageal intubation, use of a stylet is superior to intubation with an endotracheal tube alone and is comparable with use of a bougie, and administration of a fluid bolus before induction does not prevent hypotension. Many additional decisions clinicians face during emergency tracheal intubation are not yet informed by rigorous evidence. Randomized trials must continue to examine systematically each aspect of this common and high-risk procedure to improve patient outcomes and bring forth an era of evidence-based emergency tracheal intubation.
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.