English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the study was to compare the success rate, procedure time, and user satisfaction of pediatric NIO™ compared to Pediatric BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices. This was a randomized, crossover manikin trial with 87 paramedics. The correct location of intraosseous access when using NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and was respectively 100, 90, 90, and 90%. The time required to obtain intravascular access (time T1) in the case of NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and amounted to 9 s [IQR, 8-12] for NIO, 12 s [IQR, 9-16] for BIG, 13.5 s [IQR, 11-17] for the EZ-IO, and 15 s [IQR, 13-19] for Jamshidi. The paramedics evaluated each device on the subjective ease with which they performed the procedures. The intraosseous device, which proved the easiest to use was NIO, which in the case of CPR received a median rating of 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-1.5) points.

Comparison of four different intraosseous access devices during simulated pediatric resuscitation. A randomized crossover manikin trial