ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Human factors and airway management: focus on the Swiss Airway Guidelines.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although decision-making in airway management is crucial for performance and outcomes, it often deteriorates in crisis situations. Studies suggest that human decision-making can be unreliable in such situations and must be supported to reduce reliance on exceptional human performance to ensure safety. Airway guidelines provide essential evidence-based information intended to maximize the likelihood of successful airway management. However, the linear, textual and inflexible design of most algorithms does not align with the naturalistic decision-making processes involved in clinical activity. They fail to consider how decisions are made under time pressure. A user-centered design that considers the cognitive challenges of high-stakes, time-pressured airway situations might be more effective in supporting decisions at the point-of-care. The science of human factors and ergonomics has become central to airway management, particularly in supporting human performance in highly demanding cognitive environments. It provides key strategies to support cognitive load, situational awareness, and ergonomic design, maximizing the advantages of new technologies by integrating them into workflows and promoting their intuitive use in stressful situations. Consequently, human factors and ergonomics might effectively promote collaborative decision-making at the sharp end. Guided by principles of human factors, the Fondation Latine des Voies Aériennes designed the Swiss Airway Guidelines, endorsed by the Swiss Society of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine to provide clinicians with point of care guidance and support during airway management. They combine color- and icon-coded cognitive aids including key mnemonics aligned with an ergonomic airway cart. They also encompass a multimodal educational program and an implementation strategy. This system-based intervention aims to optimize decision-making in high-pressure, front-line context. By recognizing the cognitive capabilities and constraints of operators in crisis situations, it employs a holistic design approach to deliver comprehensive decision support. This narrative review uses the lens of human factors and ergonomics to describe the Swiss Airway Guidelines, drawing on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 3.0 and 101 frameworks. Our aim is to emphasize its importance in successfully managing airways, and to illustrate that reliable airway safety stems from systems designed to support human performance.
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.