Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27009026›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2016

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Hye Won Shin, Hae Na Yoo, Go Eun Bae, Jun Chul Chang, Min Kyung Park, Hae Seun You, Hyun Jung Kim, Hyung Sik Ahn

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Comparing leak pressure of LMACanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Lightwand-Guided Insertion of Flexible Reinforced Laryngeal Mask Airway: Comparison with Standard Digital Manipulation Insertion.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGainAnesthesia and pain medicine · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Hye Won ShinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea hwshin99@yahoo.com.
Hae Na YooDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Go Eun BaeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jun Chul ChangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Min Kyung ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hae Seun YouDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyun Jung KimInstitute for Evidence-based Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyung Sik AhnInstitute for Evidence-based Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ (Teleflex® Inc., Wayne, PA, USA) and i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) in adults undergoing general anesthesia.

methodsSearches of MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CENTRAL, KoreaMed and Google Scholar® were performed. The primary objective was to compare OLP; secondary objectives included comparison of clinical performance and complications.

resultsFourteen RCTs were included. OLP was significantly higher with LMA ProSeal™ than with i-gel® (mean difference [MD] -2.95 cmH2O; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.30, -1.60). The i-gel® had shorter device insertion time (MD -3.01 s; 95% CI -5.80, -0.21), and lower incidences of blood on device after removal (risk ratio [RR] 0.32; 95% CI 0.18, 0.56) and sore throat (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35, 0.89) than LMA ProSeal™.

conclusionLMA ProSeal™ provides superior airway sealing compared to i-gel®.

Indexed as

Laryngeal MasksPressureAdultDevice RemovalHumansPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAirway sealingequipmenti-gel®laryngeal mask airway prosealleakmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID27009026
PMCPMC5536706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.