Trial reportMedicine2017
Comparison of learning performance of 2 intubating laryngeal mask airways in novice: A randomized crossover manikin study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-vitro evaluation of the Singularity Air laryngeal mask: a randomized controlled comparison between medical personnel trained and untrained in airway management.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Trial
- Comparison of three supraglottic airway devices for blind tracheal intubation by novice practitioners: A randomized manikin study.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntubating laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) such as i-gel and Aura-i could serve as rescue devices in resuscitation and further ensure the airway by facilitating trachea intubation without ventilation interruption. But data regarding intubating LMAs in novice are limited and skill degeneration without regular training has not been evaluated. So we designed this prospective randomized crossover manikin study to compare the learning performance of 2 intubating LMAs (i-gel and Aura-i).
methodsIn total, 46 novice doctors participated in this study. After standardized training and finishing 3 consecutive successful intubations with both LMAs on manikin, each participant applied intubation with both LMAs in random order for initial evaluation. To evaluate skill retention, participants were reassessed 90 days later on the same manikin without retraining between times. Primary outcome was time to successful ventilation (TTV).
resultsThe TTV for i-gel was significantly shorter than Aura-i (initial evaluation 11.8 ± 2.9 seconds vs 22.4 ± 5.2 seconds, 90-days reevaluation 14.9 ± 3.6 seconds vs 28.9 ± 10.0 seconds, initial evaluation, P = .001; second evaluation, P < .001); during re-evaluation, TTV taken for i-gel and Aura-i were both significantly longer (initial evaluation, P = .001; second evaluation, P < .001) and ease score of insertion both increased profoundly (i-gel P = .025; Aura-i P < .001). In both assessments, participants preferred i-gel as easier alternative (initial evaluation, P = .001; second evaluation, P < .001). There was no difference in successful intubation rate, first attempt success rate, bronchoscopy assessment, and insertion score for 2 LMAs.
conclusionCompared with Aura-i, i-gel showed a faster and easier intubation by novice doctors in this manikin study; the skill retention of intubation performance after 3 months was acceptable for both intubating LMAs, but TTV prolonged significantly.
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.