[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Mongi Slim Hospital\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":90},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,45,66],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":34,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":35,"startDateStruct":38,"completionDateStruct":40,"leadSponsor":42,"locationsCount":4},"100644375","impact-of-a-simulated-mini-cex-on-clinical-performance-during-a-real-world-mini-cex-100644375",false,"NCT07663760","Impact of a Simulated Mini-CEX on Clinical Performance During a Real-World Mini-CEX","Impact of a Simulated Mini-CEX on Clinical Performance During a Real-World Mini-CEX: A Multicenter Study in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Fifth-year medical students (DCEM3) enrolled at the Faculty of Medicine of Tunis within the acute medicine program.\n* Students completing their clinical clerkship during the second semester of the 2025-2026 academic year in one of the three participating anesthesiology and intensive care departments.\n* Students who voluntarily agree to participate and have provided written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Students who do not complete the entire educational curriculum (absence from either of the two assessments).\n* Students who have already received similar training.",true,"ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},18,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","Modern medical education is based on competency-based learning and the use of formative assessment tools in real clinical settings, such as the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX). However, the impact of a prior simulated mini-CEX experience on subsequent performance in real clinical settings remains insufficiently studied, particularly among medical students in anesthesiology-intensive care (DCEM3). This study aimed to assess the effect of a simulated mini-CEX on performance during a real mini-CEX in pre-anesthetic consultation.",[27],"Volunteers Medical Students in Anesthesiology-intensive Care",[29,30,31,32],"Competence","Medical education","Anesthesiology","Assessment","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-18",{"date":36,"type":37},"2026-06-23","ACTUAL",{"date":39,"type":21},"2026-06-02",{"date":41,"type":21},"2026-06-26",{"name":43,"class":44},"Mongi Slim Hospital","OTHER",{"id":46,"slug":47,"hasResults":11,"nctId":48,"briefTitle":49,"officialTitle":50,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":51,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":52,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":54,"briefSummary":55,"conditions":56,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":39,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":59,"startDateStruct":61,"completionDateStruct":62,"leadSponsor":64,"locationsCount":65},"100643520","ondansetron-versus-lidocaine-for-preventing-pain-on-propofol-injection-100643520","NCT07632144","Ondansetron Versus Lidocaine for Preventing Pain on Propofol Injection.","Ondansetron Versus Lidocaine for Preventing Pain on Propofol Injection: a Randomized Controlled Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* The study included patients who met all of the following criteria:\n\nAged 18 years or older; Classified as ASA physical status I-III (Appendix 1); Provided written informed consent to participate in the study; Scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with propofol induction.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients were not eligible for inclusion if they:\n\nHad received analgesics or antiemetics within 12 hours before surgery; Had communication difficulties or were unable to assess pain adequately (e.g., language barrier, dementia, impaired consciousness); Had a known allergy to ondansetron, lidocaine, or propofol; Did not receive propofol for anesthetic induction; Were pregnant or breastfeeding; Suffered from chronic pain or regularly used opioid medications; Did not have a 20-gauge intravenous catheter inserted on the dorsum of the hand; Declined participation in the study.\n\nPatients were excluded from the study if they experienced any complication during anesthetic induction, including:\n\nAnaphylactic shock or allergic reaction to study medications; Hemodynamic or respiratory instability.\n\nPatients who subsequently withdrew their consent were also excluded from the study.",{"count":53,"type":21},156,[24],"This is a prospective, single-center, randomized, double-blind controlled trial involving patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with propofol induction. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three groups: the ondansetron group (8 mg IV), the lidocaine group (40 mg IV), or the control group (0.9% normal saline placebo). Study medications are administered intravenously over 5 minutes, ending 1 minute before anesthetic induction.\n\nthe goal: To assess the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron versus lidocaine and placebo in reducing the incidence and intensity of pain associated with propofol injection in patients undergoing general anesthesia.",[57,58],"Anesthesia Induction","Propofol Pain Injection",{"date":60,"type":37},"2026-06-08",{"date":60,"type":21},{"date":63,"type":21},"2026-08-15",{"name":43,"class":44},1,{"id":67,"slug":68,"hasResults":11,"nctId":69,"briefTitle":70,"officialTitle":71,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":72,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":73,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":75,"phases":4,"briefSummary":76,"conditions":77,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":82,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":83,"startDateStruct":85,"completionDateStruct":87,"leadSponsor":89,"locationsCount":4},"100555387","difficult-airways-scores-validation-difficult-laryngoscopy-and-mask-ventilation-prospective-and-evaluative-study-100555387","NCT06511427","Difficult Airways Scores Validation Difficult Laryngoscopy and Mask Ventilation: Prospective and Evaluative Study","Validation of Clinical and Ultrasonographic Scores for Prediction of Difficult Laryngoscopy and Mask Ventilation: Prospective and Evaluative Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients aged over 18 years, scheduled for visceral or orthopedic surgery, elective or otherwise requiring general anesthesia with primary intubation and laryngoscopy, receiving a muscle relaxant before exposure were eligible for this study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients with conditions preventing the evaluation of clinical intubation criteria, such as altered consciousness, agitation, dementia, craniofacial or cervical spine trauma, upper areodigestive tract tumors, upper airway abnormalities or malformations, history of cervical burns or radiation therapy, thyroid goiter, tracheal stenosis, pregnancy, up to 6 weeks post-partum and situations involving extremely urgent with an immediate life- threatening prognosis as well as those undergoing intubation techniques not relying on primary laryngoscopy (e.g. optical fiberscope for mouth opening under 2.5 cm and fixed cervical spine ) were not included in this study.",{"count":74,"type":21},200,"OBSERVATIONAL","Clinical screening tests were included to define a difficult laryngoscopy such as history of difficult or impossible intubation, NC, MMS, retrognathia, protrusion of the upper incisors, TMD, mouth opening, dentition, macroglossia, presence of a beard, UBLT, spine mobility and palm print test for diabetes.\n\nUltrasound airway assessment was performed: Clinical screening tests were included to define a difficult laryngoscopy such as history of difficult or impossible intubation, NC, MMS, retrognathia, protrusion of the upper incisors, TMD, mouth opening, dentition, macroglossia, presence of a beard, UBLT, spine mobility and palm print test for diabetes.\n\nUltrasound airway assessment was performed Three parameters were measured to calculate the scores: Tongue thickness (TT) in coronal plane, Distance from the skin to hyoid bone (SHB), Distance from the skin to the thyrohyoid membrane (STM). Two scores were developed from a study conducted in 2019. The first score, to predict a difficult laryngoscopy, uses two parameters: the modified MALLAMPATI class (MMS) and the STM. A score strictly greater than 2 is predictive of a difficult laryngoscopy. The second score, to predict difficult ventilation, uses four parameters: BMI, NC, TT in coronal plane, and SHB. A score strictly greater than 20 is predictive of difficult ventilation. A well-experienced anesthesiologist performed a direct laryngoscopy and graded it as Cormack-Lehane's grading.\n\nDifficulty in intubation and\u002For mask ventilation was managed according to the 2017 SFAR guidelines.",[78,79,80,81],"Airway Complication of Anesthesia","Ultrasound","Laryngoscopy","Difficult Airways","2024-07-16",{"date":84,"type":37},"2024-07-22",{"date":86,"type":21},"2024-08-15",{"date":88,"type":21},"2024-12-30",{"name":43,"class":44},""]