ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2025
Incidence of cognitive errors in difficult airway management: an inference human factors study from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives in Pediatric Ambulatory Anesthesia: Part 4-Evolving Solutions in Pediatric Ambulatory Anesthesia: From Registries to a Learning Health System Approach.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Review
- Human factors and airway management: focus on the Swiss Airway Guidelines.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Human Factors in Airway Management: Designing Systems for Safer, Team-Based Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Cognitive errors in paediatric difficult airway management: a step into the unknown.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Tiny airways, high stakes: What every clinician should know about infant airway management in 2025.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive errors are known contributors to poor decision-making in healthcare. However, their incidence and extent of their contribution to negative outcomes during difficult airway management are unknown. We aimed to identify cognitive errors during paediatric difficult airway management using data from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation (PeDI) registry, to determine patient and clinician factors associated with these errors, and their contribution to complications.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the PeDI registry data including cases with at least three intubation attempts. Cognitive error definitions were adapted to airway management, and predefined clinical endpoints were used to identify cognitive errors. A subanalysis was performed for children weighing <5 kg. Our primary outcome was the overall incidence of cognitive errors. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific cognitive error subtypes, associations with patient and clinician factors, and the relationship between cognitive errors and complications.
resultsCognitive errors were identified in 17.4% (487/2801) of cases, with fixation errors being the most common (11.5%), followed by omission bias (5.9%) and overconfidence bias (4.5%). Non-anaesthesiologist clinicians had the highest odds of cognitive errors. The presence of at least one cognitive error was independently associated with a higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.27]; P<0.001), and multiple errors increased the likelihood of severe complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.94]; P=0.01).
conclusionsCognitive errors occurred in nearly 20% of paediatric difficult airway encounters and were linked to increased complications. Further research should refine error definitions and develop mitigation strategies to improve outcomes.
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.