ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Anaesthesiologic management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration: a Swiss consensus statement.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe perioperative management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration varies widely, includes several controversial aspects, and is not regulated by official guidelines. The objective of this study was to achieve peer and expert consensus in the management of patients at risk of aspiration, thereby developing guidance in Switzerland. Controversial aspects to be clarified by expert consensus were previously identified by a broad national survey.
methodsA structured, three-phase national consensus process was conducted in Switzerland. First, the interprofessional SAFE Survey identified areas of agreement and controversy in the practice of perioperative management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration. Second, these recommendations were electronically reviewed, accepted, modified, or rejected by the heads of all anaesthesia departments accredited for postgraduate training in Switzerland. Third, the consolidated recommendations were presented to and formally endorsed by the Board of the Swiss Society of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine (SSAPM).
resultsA total of 42 out of 52 heads of anaesthesia departments contributed to the process, resulting in a response rate of 80.8%. Consensus was achieved for 17 of the 21 statements (80.9%), reflecting a successful translation of previously identified controversial topics into majority-supported recommendations. Based on the collective consensus and these findings, a national recommendation for the management of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration was developed. DISCUSSION: The resulting national recommendations, endorsed by the official society of anaesthesiology in Switzerland, aim to standardize and improve care for this vulnerable patient group, providing a foundation for consistent clinical practice across Switzerland and other countries.
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.