↓ Skip to main content

Incidence of unanticipated difficult airway using an objective airway score versus a standard clinical airway assessment: the DIFFICAIR trial – trial protocol for a cluster randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Incidence of unanticipated difficult airway using an objective airway score versus a standard clinical airway assessment: the DIFFICAIR trial – trial protocol for a cluster randomized clinical trial
Published in
Trials, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-347
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Kehlet Nørskov, Charlotte Valentin Rosenstock, Jørn Wetterslev, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm

Abstract

Pre-operative airway assessment in Denmark is based on a non-specific clinical assessment. Systematic, evidence-based and consistent airway assessment may reduce the incidence of unanticipated difficult airway management. By assessing multiple predictors for difficult airway management, the predictive value of the assessment increases. The Simplified Airway Risk Index (SARI) is a multivariate risk score for predicting difficult intubation.This study aims to compare the use of the SARI with a non-specified clinical airway assessment on predicting difficult intubation. Further, to compare the examination and registration of predictors for difficult mask ventilation with a non-specified clinical airway assessment on prediction of difficult mask ventilation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Other 7 9%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 29%