ArticleCureus2025
Impact of the COVID-19 Aerosol Box on the Intubation Success Rate.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The aerosol box was introduced as a protective barrier to reduce healthcare workers' exposure to aerosols during intubation. However, concerns remain regarding its impact on intubation efficiency and patient safety. This study compares intubation success rate, time to tracheal intubation, and intubation difficulty with and without the aerosol box. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 60 adult patients (ASA I-II, BMI ≤35 kg/m²) undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Participants were randomized into two groups: intubation with an aerosol box (Group A) and intubation without an aerosol box (Group B). Seven experienced anesthesia trainees performed the intubations. The primary outcome was time to successful tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included first-pass intubation success, Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS), and issues related to aerosol box usage. Results There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. All patients had successful first-pass intubation. The mean intubation time was significantly longer in Group A compared to Group B (30.73 ± 2.9 vs. 23.40 ± 2.0 seconds, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in intubation difficulty between groups. Common issues encountered with the aerosol box included migration off the bed in five cases (17.2%) and the need for external assistance in five cases (17.2%). The learning curve was comparable among participants. Conclusion Intubation with or without an aerosol box resulted in a 100% first-pass success rate with no significant difference in intubation difficulty. However, the aerosol box significantly increased intubation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.