Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27114727›Full record

ArticleTanaffos2015

Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques.

Ziae Totonchi, Fatemeh Jalili, Seyed Mohammadreza Hashemian, Hamid Reza Jabardarjani

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tanaffos, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Use of Silicon T-Tube for Subglottic Stenosis and Tracheal Stenosis.Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ziae TotonchiRajaei Cardiovascular Medical & Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh JaliliRajaei Cardiovascular Medical & Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Mohammadreza HashemianChronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid Reza JabardarjaniTracheal Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Masih Daneshvari Hospital · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRShaheed Rajaei Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTracheal stenosis, which has received more emphasis recently, is a common post intubation complication and may develop due to different reasons. One important reason is the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Therefore, this study sought to examine the accuracy of diagnostic test for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this cross sectional study, the accuracy of diagnostic tests for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure was assessed in 101 patients aged over 18 years who had undergone open heart surgery and post-surgical mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

resultsIn the palpation technique, the cuff pressure of 27 patients (26.7%) was reported to be out of the permissible range and for the rest of them (74 patients, 73.3%) it was within the permissible range. Then, the cuff pressure was checked by the standard method using a manometer and after comparing the results it was found that the cuff pressure of 92 patients (91.1%) was not in the permissible range and only nine patients (8.9%) had a cuff pressure within the permissible range (20-30 cm H2O). In minimal occlusive volume method compared with the standard method, 22 patients (21.7%) had cuff pressure within the permissible range of 20-30 cm H2O, and 79 of them (78.2%) had cuff pressure out of the permissible range and higher than the upper limit.

conclusionThis study recommends that the best way to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure is to use a cuff manometer, and when it is not available, the minimal occlusive volume would be a better alternative compared to the palpation technique to keep the cuff pressure within a proper range to avoid tracheotomy complications such as tracheal stenosis.

Indexed as

Cuff pressureTracheaTracheal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID27114727
PMCPMC4841992
OpenAlexW2466923633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.