Training and experience are more important than the type of practitioner for intubation success 英文参考文献.docVIP

Fouche et al. Critical Care 2013, 17:412 /content/17/1/412 LET TER Training and experience are more important than the type of practitioner for intubation success Pieter F Fouche* , Paul M Middleton and Kristina M Zverinova 1 2 1 See related research by Lossius et al., /content/16/1/R24 A meta-analysis by Lossius and colleagues demonstrated was not statistically signi? cant. Rapid sequence induction a higher endotracheal intubation (ETI) success rate for was left out of the ? nal model, because all physicians physicians compared with nonphysicians [1]. We re- utilised this induction and its inclusion would needlessly analysed the data from Lossius and colleagues to in? ate variance. investigate the relationship between the clinicians’ levels of training and ETI success rates, utilising the ‘Overview Lossius and colleagues compared ETI success rates of highly trained anaesthesiologists and emergency physicians of included studies’ spreadsheet published online as an from northwestern Europe with paramedics and nurses additional ? le. We created a variable for a high level of ETI training taken from the ‘extensively trained’ their meta-analysis included rural basic emergency description in the ‘EMS manning’ column. We assumed from the rest of the world [1]. One study incorporated in medical technicians with no previous ETI experience [2]. the physicians to also be highly trained in ETI, as they Perhaps unsurprisingly, the authors showed increased entirely comprised emergency physicians and anaesthe- sio logists. Our multivariate meta-regression analysis, ETI success rates for highly trained physicians compared with such a varied group of nonphysicians. However, our adjusting for the training and the type