Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.
The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. ⋯ Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.
-
Review
Are most randomised trials in anaesthesia and critical care wrong? An analysis using Bayes' theorem.
False findings are an inevitable consequence of statistical testing. In this article, I use Bayes' theorem to estimate the false positive and false negative risks for randomised controlled trials related to our speciality. ⋯ By contrast, large, multicentre trials in critical care appear to have a high false negative risk. These findings suggest much of the evidence that underpins our clinical practice is likely to be wrong.