MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323652963 · doi:10.1186/s13049-023-01075-z

Airway registries in primarily adult, emergent endotracheal intubation: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4323652963 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Meulendyks, Daniel Korpal, Helen Jingshu Jin, Sameer Mal, Jacob Pace

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayMedicineIntubationAirway managementMEDLINEScopusEmergency departmentIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyEndotracheal intubationEmergency medicineAnesthesiaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) airway registries are formalized methods to collect and document airway practices and outcomes. Airway registries have become increasingly common in EDs globally; yet there is no consensus of airway registry methodology or intended utility. This review builds on previous literature and aims to provide a thorough description of international ED airway registries and discuss how airway registry data is utilized. METHODS: A search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Libraries, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed with no date limitations applied. English language full-text publications and grey literature from centres implementing an ongoing airway registry to monitor intubations performed in mainly adult patients in an ED setting were included. Non-English publications and publications describing airway registries to monitor intubation practices in predominantly paediatric patients or settings outside of the ED were excluded. Study screening for eligibility was performed by two team members individually, with any disagreements resolved by a third team member. Data was charted using a standardized data charting tool created for this review. RESULTS: Our review identified 124 eligible studies from 22 airway registries with a global distribution. We found that airway registry data is used for quality assurance, quality improvement, and clinical research regarding intubation practices and contextual factors. This review also demonstrates that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in definitions of first-pass success and adverse events in the peri-intubation period. CONCLUSIONS: Airway registries are used as a crucial tool to monitor and improve intubation performance and patient care. ED airway registries inform and document the efficacy of quality improvement initiatives to improve intubation performance in EDs globally. Standardized definitions of first-pass success and peri-intubation adverse events, such as hypotension and hypoxia, may allow for airway management performance to be compared on a more equivalent basis and allow for the development of more reliable international benchmarks for first-pass success and rates of adverse events in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207