Validation of a novel handheld device for accurate cricoid pressure application on a laryngotracheal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cricoid pressure, manual compression of the cricoid cartilage using 30 N of force, is a well-established technique to prevent regurgitation during airway management. However, applying and maintaining the correct force has proven difficult for providers. To address this, we developed a handheld Cricoid Pressure Device, which displays applied force in real time. This study aims to assess the device in terms of its ability to aid providers in applying the correct force. In a single center study, twenty five healthcare providers performed cricoid pressure for three 60-s trials on a laryngotracheal model under three conditions: 1) Standard condition with no training, 2) Post-Training condition following syringe model training, and 3) Cricoid Pressure Device condition using our novel device. The primary outcome was the proportion of providers applying pressure within the target range (30 ± 5 N) for at least 95 % of the trial duration. Secondary outcomes included providers’ feedback on the usability of the device. Using the Cricoid Pressure Device, 92 % of providers applied force within the target range for the third trial, compared to 4 % in the Standard condition and 8 % in the Post-training condition. A logistic mixed effects model indicated that the odds of successful application using the Device were significantly higher than the Standard condition (OR = 482.7; 95 % CI 67.7, 3442.5). All participants believed the device would be extremely useful in clinical practice. The Cricoid Pressure Device significantly improved provider's ability to apply the target cricoid pressure to a laryngotracheal model compared to standard practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".