Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33033956›Full record

Trial reportCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2021

Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways.

Sunny Fong, Elliott Li, Efrem Violato, Andrew Reid, Yuqi Gu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06968377 (Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Airborne Pathogen Containment Device Design), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06968377 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Airborne Pathogen Containment Device Design: Randomized Open-label Equivalence Trial of Patient Safety and Acceptability During Endotracheal Intubation.

TypeinterventionalSponsorIWK Health CentreRan2025 to 2026Enrolled80ConditionsMedical Device, Medical Device Performance, Aerosol Generating ProcedureArmsA novel airborne pathogen containment device.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Newly Developed InterprofessionalJournal of clinical medicine research · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sunny FongDepartment of Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. sfong1@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7498-6536
Elliott LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative & Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Efrem ViolatoDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Andrew ReidAlberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Yuqi GuDepartment of Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are at risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, and concerns of protecting healthcare workers during aerosol-generating medical procedures has led to the design of the aerosol box.

methodsWe conducted a randomized crossover mannequin-based simulation study to compare airway management with and without the aerosol box. Thirty-five anesthesiology participants and three critical care participants with more than 50 intubations with videolaryngoscopes were recruited. There were four airway simulations with and without the aerosol box (normal, pharyngeal swelling, cervical spine rigidity, and tongue edema). Each participant intubated the mannequin in eight consecutive simulations. The primary outcome of the study was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, and personal protective equipment breaches.

resultsMean (standard deviation [SD]) time to intubation overall with the box was 30.9 (23.0) sec, while the time to intubation without the box was 25.1 (12.2) sec (mean difference, 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9 to 14.5). For the normal airway scenario, the mean (SD) time to intubation was 18.6 (3.5) sec for no box and 20.4 (3.3) sec for box (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.2 to 3.4). During difficult airway scenarios only, the time to intubation was 34.4 (25.6) sec with the aerosol box and 27.3 (13.2) sec without the aerosol box (mean difference, 7.1; 95% CI, -2.5 to 16.7). There were more intubation attempts, personal protective equipment breaches, and optimization maneuvers during use of the aerosol box.

conclusionsIn this mannequin-based simulation study, the use of the aerosol box increased the time to intubation in some contexts but not others. Further studies in a clinical setting should be conducted to make appropriate modifications to the aerosol box to fully elicit its efficacy and safety prior to implementation in airway guidelines for managing patients with COVID-19.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19AerosolsHumansIntubation, IntratrachealManikinsSARS-CoV-2AerosolsCOVID-19intubationmannequin-based studysimulation

Identifiers

PMID33033956
PMCPMC7544519
OpenAlexW3092056856

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.