FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1518996688> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1518996688 endingPage "1178" @default.
• W1518996688 startingPage "1177" @default.
• W1518996688 abstract "In a recent editorial, we detailed the pitfalls of using manikins to evaluate airway equipment and then extrapolating these data to clinical practice [1]. The manikin study by Vajayakumar et al., which compares the single use Ambu® aScope™ (Ambu UK Ltd. St. Ives, Cambridgeshire, UK) with the Olympus re-useable fibre scope (LF-GP; Olympus KeyMed, Southend-on-Sea, UK), illustrates many of our concerns [2]. We once again question the undertaking and publication of these studies. Vajayakumar et al. assessed the ease of use of two fibrescopes in a manikin, that bears little resemblance to clinical conditions except to serve as a model of anatomy. After using the aScope in 20 patients, we decided against a trial comparing it with a re-usable scope. There are several features such as a poor image quality, inability to thread an epidural catheter, lack of suction, larger diameter and stiffness of the device that make the aScope inferior in a clinical setting, as discussed above by Willcox and Turner [3] We felt it unethical to trial this device after its poor performance in clinical practice. A key issue in their design was the use of surface tip collision as an outcome measure of manoeuvrability. They justified the use of this outcome by quoting a previous study [4], that was designed to assess the use of surface tip collision as a measure of fibreoptic manipulation skill, and not of the scope itself; furthermore, the results were not validated in clinical practice. The authors also stated that whilst they could not comment on clinical use, their findings demonstrate that the aScope is as easy to manoeuvre as the Olympus re-usable scope. However, in the summary they stated that the aScope appears to be an acceptable alternative to the re-usable scope. We find no justification for this conclusion and disagree with their statement that manikin studies can be ‘considered an alternative to the testing conducted by only a small number of researchers/device experts in studies on patients’. We appreciate the need for disposable devices in the current climate but believe that evaluation in the clinical setting is the more robust approach." @default.
• W1518996688 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1518996688 creator A5035960464 @default.
• W1518996688 creator A5058322001 @default.
• W1518996688 date "2011-11-09" @default.
• W1518996688 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1518996688 title "Use of manikins in airway equipment development" @default.
• W1518996688 cites W1608102832 @default.
• W1518996688 cites W1853991551 @default.
• W1518996688 cites W2052493234 @default.
• W1518996688 cites W3145556319 @default.
• W1518996688 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06985_1.x" @default.
• W1518996688 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22070593" @default.
• W1518996688 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1518996688 type Work @default.
• W1518996688 sameAs 1518996688 @default.
• W1518996688 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1518996688 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1518996688 hasAuthorship W1518996688A5035960464 @default.
• W1518996688 hasAuthorship W1518996688A5058322001 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C2778012447 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C2779974597 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C2780615836 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C136764020 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C141071460 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C162324750 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C1862650 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C19527891 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C199360897 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C21547014 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C2778012447 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C2779974597 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C2780615836 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C41008148 @default.
• W1518996688 hasConceptScore W1518996688C71924100 @default.
• W1518996688 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W1518996688 hasLocation W15189966881 @default.
• W1518996688 hasLocation W15189966882 @default.
• W1518996688 hasOpenAccess W1518996688 @default.
• W1518996688 hasPrimaryLocation W15189966881 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2519357708 @default.
• W1518996688 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W1518996688 hasVolume "66" @default.
• W1518996688 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1518996688 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1518996688 magId "1518996688" @default.
• W1518996688 workType "article" @default.