METHODS: Through the review of the literature, this paper discusses seven questions, (i) What is SLE? (ii) What are the types of SLEs? (iii) How is SLE classified? (iv) What is HF SLE? (v) What types of SLEs are available in audiology and their level of fidelity? (vi) What are the components needed for developing HF SLE? (vii) What are the possible types of HF SLEs that are suitable for audiology training? Publications were identified by structured searches from three major databases PubMed, Web of Knowledge and PsychInfo and from the reference lists of relevant articles. The authors discussed and mapped the levels of fidelity of SLE audiology training modules from the literature and the learning domains involved in the clinical audiology courses.
RESULTS: The discussion paper has highlighted that most of the existing SLE audiology training modules consist of either low- or medium-fidelity types of simulators. Those components needed to achieve a HF SLE for audiology training are also highlighted.
CONCLUSION: Overall, this review recommends that the combined approach of different levels and types of SLE could be used to obtain a HF SLE training module in audiology training.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI.
RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.
Methods: A complete literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers. The PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus databases were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of all textbooks and relevant articles were searched manually. A meta-analysis was performed using data entered into the electronic databases until February 28, 2017.
Results: On the basis of the search, we identified 17 and 7 publications for the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Odds ratio (OR) was used to evaluate the association of the interleukin 1B (+3954) polymorphism and the risk of EARR. The overall OR from the studies was used to estimate the risk of EARR. However, no association was found and no publication bias was apparent for the risk of EARR in patients receiving orthodontic treatment.
Conclusions: More research on the relationship between gene polymorphism and EARR is necessary to determine better specificity of possible interactions.