ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2015
Comparison of the effects of various airway devices on hemodynamic response and QTc interval in rabbits under general anesthesia.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of a Supraglottic Airway Device (v-gelFrontiers in veterinary science · 2017Article
- A comparison of supraglottic airway devices versus endotracheal intubation for use in rabbit anaesthesia.Veterinary evidenceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledIn this study, we aimed to compare the effects of various airway devices on QTc interval in rabbits under general anesthesia. The subjects were randomly separated into four groups: Group ETT, Group LMA, Group PLA, Group V-gel. Baseline values and hearth rate, mean arterial pressure and ECG was obtained at the 1st, 5th and 30th minutes after administration of anesthesia and placement of airway device and, QTc interval was evaluated. Difference was observed between ET group and V-gel group in the 5th minute mean arterial pressure values (p < 0.05). It was observed that QTc intervals at the 1st and 5th minute in the ET group significantly increased when compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). Again, it was observed that QTc interval of ET group at the 15th and 30th minute was longer when compared with PLA and V-gel groups (p < 0.05). It was also observed that QTc interval of LMA Group at the 5th minute after intubation significantly increased when compared with V-gel group (p < 0.05). It was observed that HR values of ETT group at the 1st, 5th and 15th minutes after intubation increased with regards to PLA and V-gel groups (p < 0.05). It was determined that the 30th minute hearth rate of ETT group was higher when compared to V-gel group (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn our study we observed that V-gel Rabbit affected both hemodynamic response and QT interval less than other airway devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.