ReviewBJA open2026
Evaluation of the impact of high altitude on pre-hospital anaesthetic administration: a scoping review.
Review in BJA open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Increasing high-altitude travel and habitation drive demand for care in these environments. High altitude presents unique challenges to anaesthetic administration as hypobaric hypoxia affects physiology, pharmacology, and equipment performance, yet no guidelines exist. This scoping review aimed to identify anaesthetics used at HA, evaluate the impact of high altitude on anaesthetic use, and highlight research gaps. Methods: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched (October 2024 to May 2025). English-language studies, published after 1980, involving human participants receiving any anaesthetic agent above 1500 m were included. Critical appraisal is undertaken using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. Results: A total of 21 articles (14 original studies, three case reports/series, and four letters to the editor; Conclusions: Anaesthesia at high altitude remains complex and high-risk. Evidence indicates general anaesthesia should be avoided where possible; Total i.v. anaesthesia may be a practical option where general anaesthesia is required, although the available evidence is limited. Neuraxial techniques are effective in-hospital but impractical pre-hospital. Methoxyflurane and ketamine seem promising for field use at high altitude, whereas nitrous oxide, opioids, and benzodiazepines may carry increased risks. Altitude-specific research and expert consensus are urgently required.
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.