Introduction: Airway management research has historically incorporated heterogeneous outcome selection and definitions. This impedes evidence synthesis and hinders advances in patient care. We aimed to develop a core outcome set to standardise airway management research and improve outcome reporting.
Methods: We performed a systematic review of outcomes reported in airway management studies to identify candidate outcomes from a random sample of eligible studies. We used a modified Delphi survey of three key stakeholder groups: patients with experience of airway management; clinicians engaged in airway management; and others (including researchers, device manufacturers and policymakers). Outcomes were classified into five domains: procedural effectiveness; physiological parameters; adverse events; patient-reported outcomes; and other. Outcomes were presented in random order in two sequential virtual Delphi surveys and rated by each respondent. Candidate outcome measurement instruments were identified through included studies and targeted literature searches. Subsequently, a core outcome set with suggested outcome measurement instruments was discussed and agreed.
Results: The systematic review identified 4368 studies, with 68 candidate outcomes longlisted from a random sample of 100 studies. Rounds one and two Delphi surveys were completed by 453 and 155 participants, respectively, from six continents. First and second virtual panels were attended by 62 and 44 participants, respectively. The final agreed core outcome set included 11 outcomes: death; cardiac arrest; serious complications; pulmonary complications; neurological complications; airway trauma; unrecognised oesophageal intubation; hypoxaemia; first attempt success without complications; overall success without complications; and difficult airway. Proposed outcome measurement instruments were agreed for all included outcomes.
Discussion: We present the first consensus-based core outcome set for airway management research, with agreed definitions and measurement instruments. Incorporation of these outcomes into future airway management studies will harmonise evidence synthesis and improve the translatability of findings to improve clinical care.
Keywords: airway management; core outcome set; patient‐reported outcomes; survey.
Patients often have airway management for a planned general anaesthetic or as a result of a medical emergency. Procedures or devices are used to make sure that oxygen is safely delivered to the lungs at all times. Research studies of airway management look at different outcomes to see if a treatment works well and is safe. An outcome is a way of measuring how well a treatment works or how it affects a patient's health. An outcome might be something patients can feel, like pain, or something that can be seen by a healthcare professional, such as wound healing, or a test result, such as a blood pressure reading. The aim of the Airway Terminology and Outcome Measures (ATOM) project was to find the most important outcomes for airway management studies and agree how to define them. We looked at relevant studies to see what outcomes were reported in the past. We then used two surveys to ask patients with personal experience of airway management, as well as healthcare professionals and researchers, which outcomes were the most important to them. After the surveys, two online meetings with patients and airway management experts took place to agree on the final 11 outcomes. These related to patient safety and other clinical procedures and the best methods of measuring them. We hope that future studies will use these outcomes to help healthcare professionals improve patient care.
© 2025 The Author(s). Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.