Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36778796›Full record

ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Effect of two barrier devices on the time taken and ease of intubation of a paediatric intubation manikin - A randomised cross-over simulation study.

Sailaja Kamabathula, Gita Nath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sailaja KamabathulaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Axon Anaesthesia Associates, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Gita NathDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Axon Anaesthesia Associates, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: During the present COVID-19 pandemic, several inventions have been employed to protect personnel involved in intubation from inhalational exposure to the virus. In this study, we compared the effect of two barrier devices, Intubation Box versus Plastic Drape, on the time taken and difficulty in intubating a pediatric manikin. Material and Methods: Nineteen experienced anesthesiologists performed six different intubations: without barrier, with intubation box, with plastic drape; with and without a bougie, using the Latin Square Design for randomizing order of intubations. The time taken for intubation (TTI) was compared using Student's Results: Both barrier devices increased the TTI from 14.8 (3.5) s to 19.8 (6.8) s with intubation box ( Conclusion: Both the intubation box and plastic drape increased the time taken as well as difficulty in intubation. The extra protection afforded should be balanced against risks of hypoxia in the patient.

Indexed as

Barrier deviceCOVID-19intubationintubation boxplastic drape

Identifiers

PMID36778796
PMCPMC9912886

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.