E<scp>NDOTRACHEAL</scp>I<scp>NTUBATION AND</scp>E<scp>SOPHAGEAL</scp>T<scp>RACHEAL</scp>C<scp>OMBITUBE</scp>I<scp>NSERTION BY</scp>R<scp>EGULAR</scp>A<scp>MBULANCE</scp>A<scp>TTENDANTS</scp>: A C<scp>OMPARATIVE</scp>T<scp>RIAL</scp>

Rumball, C. A.; MacDonald, David; Pérez, Patricia Barber; Wong, Hubert; Smecher, Curt

doi:10.1080/312703002764

Cited by 56 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…44 In several controlled clinical trials involving both inhospital and out-of-hospital resuscitation of adults, providers with all levels of experience were able to insert the esophageal-tracheal tube and deliver ventilation comparable to that achieved with endotracheal intubation. 35,[45][46][47][48] In a retrospective study no difference in outcome was observed in patients treated with the esophageal-tracheal tube compared with those treated with endotracheal intubation. 38 The esophageal-tracheal tube is reported to provide successful ventilation during CPR in 62% to 100% of patients.…”

Section: Esophageal-tracheal Tubementioning

confidence: 99%

“…38 The esophageal-tracheal tube is reported to provide successful ventilation during CPR in 62% to 100% of patients. 35,[45][46][47][48][49] For healthcare professionals trained in its use, the esophagealtracheal tube is an acceptable alternative to both bag-mask ventilation (Class IIa, LOE C) or endotracheal intubation (Class IIa, LOE A) for airway management in cardiac arrest.…”

Section: Esophageal-tracheal Tubementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Part 8: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support

Neumar¹,

Otto²,

Link³

et al. 2010

Circulation

1,348

872

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Esophageal-tracheal Tubementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Esophageal-tracheal Tubementioning

confidence: 99%

Part 8: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support

Neumar¹,

Otto²,

Link³

et al. 2010

Circulation

1,348

872

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, we include in the present review nine studies making comparison with non-simulation instruction [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] and eight studies making comparison with alternate simulation. 71,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] These comparisons with active interventions were included in previous meta-analyses. 14,15 Three articles omitted the number of trainees; we contacted these authors and two provided needed information.…”

Section: Trial Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…71,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] For these studies, we conducted meta-analyses according to seven (2) 14 (28) Randomized 2-group (3) 27 (56) Sampling: No. institutions (maximum 1.5) 1 (0.5) 37 (74) 2 ( Subjective (1) 4 (8) Objective (3) 46 (92) Validity evidence (maximum 3) Content (1) 7 (14) Internal structure (1) 3 (6) Relations to other variables (1) 3 (6) Data analysis: appropriate (maximum 1)…”

Section: Quantitative Synthesis: Comparative Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulationbased instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects. RESULTS: From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, −0.06 to 0.78). LIMITATIONS: Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I 2 >50 % in most analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

show abstract

“…91 There is less robust support for the laryngeal mask airway, and although the Combitube has been demonstrated to be efficacious in the hands of skilled physicians as an alternative to tracheal intubation, there is evidence that it may be less so when used by minimally trained individuals. 92,93 An adjunct to airway and ventilation management is the impedance threshold device (ITD). The ITD is a valve that is connected to an airway device (mask, supraglottic airway, endotracheal tube) and reduces air entry to the lungs during the decompression phase of chest compressions.…”

Section: Airway Management Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%