Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Using the predictive model of difficult endotracheal intubation to examine different simulators for airway management training: a pilot cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, Taiwan's medical education has increasingly emphasized simulated learning, particularly through advanced manikins designed for procedural training, including endotracheal intubation. Although key indicators and predictive techniques for assessing complexity have been documented, their use in evaluating these manikins remains notably lacking.The aim of this study was to appraise the potential association between our devised scoring system and the actual outcome of intubation procedures. Subsequently, this scoring system could potentially serve as an objective yardstick for quantifying the intricacy of training simulators.
methodsNineteen post-graduate or emergency medicine trainees participated in this study. Intubation training involved four manikins, each with varying difficulty scores based on neck circumference, thyromental distance, airway obstruction, and Mallampati grade 3/4. Training modules included standard, advanced, and small adult intubation. Independent variables were training models and operator skill levels, while dependent variables included intubation time, success rate, tooth injury, gastric insufflation, uninflated cuff mishaps, perceived difficulty (rated 1-5), and laryngoscopy view quality (rated 1-4). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Intubation parameters were recorded for comparison across subgroups. Mean intubation times for models A, B, and D were 42.67 ± 15.32 seconds, 48.73 ± 17.54 seconds, and 50.22 ± 18.40 seconds, with success rates of 89.47%, 78.95%, and 68.42%, respectively. Model 'C' had the highest difficulty score (4.430 points), the longest intubation time (58.84 ± 22.63 seconds, P <.001), and the lowest success rate (57.89%, P <.001), and was rated most difficult by participants. Notably, subsequent intubation attempts showed reduced time and complexity compared to the initial one.In conclusions, our devised scoring metric demonstrated a remarkable congruence with the tangible outcomes of the challenging endotracheal intubation training model. This outcome lends credence to the potential applicability of our formula not only in assessing the intricacy of existing models but also as a guiding benchmark for the innovation and refinement of novel training manikins.
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.