Videolaryngoscopy use before and after the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of videolaryngoscopy use in facilitating tracheal intubation has already been established, however its use was actively encouraged during the COVID-19 pandemic as it was likely to improve intubation success and increase the patient-operator distance. OBJECTIVES: We sought to establish videolaryngoscopy use before and after the early phases of the pandemic, whether institutions had acquired new devices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether there had been teaching on the devices acquired. DESIGN: We designed a survey with 27 questions made available via the Joint Information Scientific Committee JISC online survey platform in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Portuguese. This was distributed through 18 anaesthetic and airway management societies. SETTING: The survey was open for 54 to 90 days in various countries. The first responses were logged on the databases on 28 October 2021, with all databases closed on 26 January 2022. Reminders to participate were sent at the discretion of the administering organisations. PARTICIPANTS: All anaesthetists and airway managers who received the study were eligible to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Videolaryngoscopy use before the COVID-19 pandemic and at the time of the survey. RESULTS: We received 4392 responses from 96 countries: 944/4336 (21.7%) were from trainees. Of the 3394 consultants, 70.8% (2402/3394) indicated no change in videolaryngoscopy use, 19.9% (675/3394) increased use and 9.3% (315/3393) reduced use. Among trainees 65.5% (618/943) reported no change in videolaryngoscopy use, 27.7% (261/943) increased use and 6.8% (64/943) reduced use. Overall, videolaryngoscope use increased by 10 absolute percentage points following the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopy use increased following the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic but this was less than might have been expected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".