Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25812135›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sun Kyung Park, Geun Joo Choi, Yun Suk Choi, Eun Jin Ahn, Hyun Kang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Comparing leak pressure of LMACanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Randomized Prospective Comparison of the SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sun Kyung ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Jeju National University, JeJu, Korea.
Geun Joo ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yun Suk ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Jeju National University, JeJu, Korea.
Eun Jin AhnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SungKyunKwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun KangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesConflicting results have been reported for the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal (LMA-P) during general anesthesia. The objective of the current investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of the i-gel vs. the LMA-P during general anesthesia.

methodsTwo authors performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the LMA-P with the i-gel during general anesthesia. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test.

resultsTwelve randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. There were no significant differences in insertion success rate at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 1.06), ease of insertion (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93, 1.39), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (MD -1.98, 95% CI -5.41, 1.45), quality of fiberoptic view (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91, 1.10) and success rate of gastric tube insertion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98, 1.18) between the i-gel and the LMA-P, respectively. The i-gel had a shorter insertion time than the LMA-P (MD -3.99, 95% CI -7.13, -0.84) and a lower incidence of blood staining on the device (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14, 0.49), sore throat (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.50) and dysphagia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10, 0.74).

conclusionsBoth devices were comparable in ease of insertion to insert and both had sufficient OLP to provide a reliable airway. Only a few minor complications were reported. The i-gel was found to have fewer complications (blood staining, sore throat, dysphagia) than the LMA-P and offers certain advantages over the LMA-P in adults under general anesthesia.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralLaryngeal MasksHumans

Identifiers

PMID25812135
PMCPMC4374933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.