Airway management research and the need for consensus

Abstract

There has been a disappointing lack of agreement between authors/researchers on the prevalence of manikin‐based studies in airway management (based upon differing search criteria and methodologies), which has greatly overshadowed the more important message and fundamental purpose of our initial editorial (and proposed ‘consensus on airway research ethics [CARE]’ guideline) 1, namely to improve the safety and advance the ethics of airway management research. This difference in opinion has spawned counter‐editorial and counter‐comment and, although any academic discussion on the topic of airway research can be perceived as positive in drawing attention to the issues in this field, there has been a loss of perspective away from the key aspects of patient safety and ethical rigour. Pleasingly, McGrenaghan and Smith's editorial 2 (and Ahmad et al.'s systematic review 3) provides a more balanced view and, although we do not agree with every aspect, we are delighted to see a return of focus to the wider and more significant issues that we had initially sought to highlight. We look forward to the Difficult Airway Society providing consensus opinion and further guidance in this area.