↓ Skip to main content

The success of pre-hospital tracheal intubation by different pre-hospital providers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
70 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The success of pre-hospital tracheal intubation by different pre-hospital providers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1603-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Crewdson, D. J. Lockey, J. Røislien, H. M. Lossius, M. Rehn

Abstract

Pre-hospital basic airway interventions can be ineffective at providing adequate oxygenation and ventilation in some severely ill or injured patients, and advanced airway interventions are then required. Controversy exists regarding the level of provider required to perform successful pre-hospital intubation. A previous meta-analysis reported pre-hospital intubation success rates of 0.849 for non-physicians versus 0.991 for physicians. The evidence base on the topic has expanded significantly in the last 10 years. This study systematically reviewed recent literature and presents comprehensive data on intubation success rates. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed using PRISMA methodology to identify articles on pre-hospital tracheal intubation published between 2006 and 2016. Overall success rates were estimated using random effects meta-analysis. The relationship between intubation success rate and provider type was assessed in weighted linear regression analysis. Of the 1838 identified studies, 38 met the study inclusion criteria. Intubation was performed by non-physicians in half of the studies and by physicians in the other half. The crude median (range) reported overall success rate was 0.969 (0.616-1.000). In random effects meta-analysis, the estimated overall intubation success rate was 0.953 (0.938-0.965). The crude median (range) reported intubation success rates for non-physicians were 0.917 (0.616-1.000) and, for physicians, were 0.988 (0.781-1.000) (p = 0.003). The reported overall success rate of pre-hospital intubation has improved, yet there is still a significant difference between non-physician and physician providers. The finding that less-experienced personnel perform less well is not unexpected, but since there is considerable evidence that poorly performed intubation carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality careful consideration should be given to the training and experience required to deliver this intervention safely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 204 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Researcher 25 12%
Other 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 50 24%
Unknown 37 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 <1%
Materials Science 2 <1%
Social Sciences 2 <1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 48 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2023.
All research outputs
#798,303
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#585
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,008
of 434,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.