ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Airway Management Practices in Burn Patients: A Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoss of airway represents a serious clinical concern in the management of burn patients and frequently prompts early intubation. However, intubation itself carries inherent risks and is not invariably required for optimal care. Concern over the potentially severe consequences of airway compromise may lead clinicians to intubate more often than clinically warranted, thereby exposing patients to complications associated with airway management and mechanical ventilation. The lack of unified guidelines contributes to variation in practice, raising important questions about how burn victims are handled across different clinical settings. We aim to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of studies on airway management in burn patients, (2) describe available clinical decision tools or formal guidelines that support clinicians in deciding when burn-injured patients should undergo endotracheal intubation, and (3) identify and synthesize reported outcomes with particular attention to adverse events associated with intubation in burn patients.
methodsWe will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will systematically search Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2011 onward, including randomized and non-randomized trials, observational studies, and case series with ≥ 5 patients. We will use a Population, Concept, and Context-based approach to define eligibility criteria: Population: burn patients (no age limitations); Concept: airway management of any kind and their associated outcomes; Context: timing of airway management, location, and healthcare provider of airway management. Two authors will independently screen studies, followed by full-text assessment and data extraction. All reported clinical and procedural outcomes will be included. Findings will be synthesized descriptively to highlight key themes, evidence gaps, and areas of clinical uncertainty. DISCUSSION: This review will provide an overview of existing evidence on airway management in burn patients, identify knowledge gaps, and help promote areas for future research.
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.