ArticlePloS one2026
Implementation tendencies and expert perspectives on physician-performed prehospital endotracheal intubation in Japan: Findings from the first round of a Delphi survey.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardization of prehospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) has been shown to be essential for improving first-pass success rates and minimizing complications. In Japan, however, physician-performed prehospital ETI lacks uniform implementation. To address this gap, we conducted a Delphi study to assess expert consensus on key practices and discrepancies between perceived appropriateness and actual use. We conducted the first round of a modified two-round Delphi study using a web-based questionnaire comprising 90 recommendation statements across eight domains, derived from the literature and a pilot study. Eligible participants were physicians with at least three years of prehospital emergency care experience and a minimum of 30 prehospital ETI cases. Statements were rated for perceived appropriateness and implementation on a 4-point Likert scale, with consensus defined as a positive response rate of ≥70.0%. Free-text comments were also collected to explore areas of discrepancy. Among 58 invited physicians, 40 (69.0%) responded, of whom 65.0% had more than 15 years of prehospital experience. Consensus on appropriateness was achieved for 72 of 90 items (80.0%), whereas consensus on implementation was reached for 57 items (63.3%). At the domain level, appropriateness consensus was highest in the Confirmation domain (100%; 9/9 items) and lowest in the Environment during endotracheal intubation domain (25%; 1/4 items). Discrepancies between perceived appropriateness and implementation were observed across multiple domains, including peripheral equipment and medication-related practices. At the item level, checklist use was considered appropriate by 65.0% of respondents but reported as implemented by only 10.0%. These findings highlight gaps between perceived appropriateness and implementation of physician-performed prehospital ETI practices in Japan, underscoring the need for context-sensitive, locally adapted protocols.
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.