Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30347104›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2019

Effect of Cricoid Pressure Compared With a Sham Procedure in the Rapid Sequence Induction of Anesthesia: The IRIS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Aurélie Birenbaum, David Hajage, Sabine Roche, Alexandre Ntouba, Mathilde Eurin, Philippe Cuvillon, Aurélien Rohn, Vincent Compere, Dan Benhamou, Matthieu Biais and 5 more

Erratum issued 3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02080754 phase3completednot on this map

Sellick Maneuver Evaluation in Rapid Sequence Induction of General Anesthesia Non Inferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2014 to 2017Enrolled3,472ConditionsRapid Sequence Induction of General Anesthesia, Sellick Maneuver, Acid Aspiration Syndrome, Lung AspirationArmseffective sellick maneuver, sham sellick maneuver
NCT03841890 nacompletednot on this map

The Clarus Video System (Trachway) and Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation With Cricoid Pressure in Simulated Rapid Sequence Induction Intubation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorChang Gung Memorial HospitalRan2016 to 2018Enrolled150ConditionsIntubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopes, Anesthesia, GeneralArmsthe Clarus Video System as a video stylet, the Clarus Video System as a lightwand, direct laryngoscope
NCT05509335 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Ultrasound Assessment On Real Time Effectiveness Of Cricoid Pressure In Paediatric Population Under General Anaesthesia

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of MalayaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled90ConditionsAspiration of Food, Pediatric ALL
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Preoperative fasting guidelines: A narrative review.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Airway management in the obstetric patient: management strategyRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Sellick's manoeuvre - An old song with new lyrics.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Aurélie BirenbaumDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
David HajageSorbonne Université, Department of Biostatistics Public Health and Medical Information, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Sabine RocheDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Alexandre NtoubaUniversité Jules Verne, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, CHI Amiens-Picardie, Amiens, France.
Mathilde EurinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.
Philippe CuvillonUniversité de Montpellier, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Carémeau, Nîmes, France.
Aurélien RohnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Regional de Lille, Lille, France.
Vincent CompereUniversité de Haute-Normandie, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital, Rouen, France.
Dan BenhamouUniversité Paris-Sud, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Bicêtre, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Matthieu BiaisUniversité Victor Segalen, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.
Remi MenutUniversité Toulouse 3-Paul Sabatier, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Sabiha BenachiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Avicenne, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bobigny, France.
François LenfantDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre Hospitalier Simone Veil, Cannes, France.
Bruno RiouSorbonne Université, UMR Inserm, Institut hospitalo-universitaire ICAN, Department of Emergency Medicine and Surgery, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
IRIS Investigators Group
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre Hospitalier de Cannes · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRHôpital Pellegrin · FRNormandie Université · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FRUniversité de Picardie Jules Verne · FRUniversité Paris-Sud · FRUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The use of cricoid pressure (Sellick maneuver) during rapid sequence induction (RSI) of anesthesia remains controversial in the absence of a large randomized trial. Objective: To test the hypothesis that the incidence of pulmonary aspiration is not increased when cricoid pressure is not performed. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial conducted in 10 academic centers. Patients undergoing anesthesia with RSI were enrolled from February 2014 until February 2017 and followed up for 28 days or until hospital discharge (last follow-up, February 8, 2017). Interventions: Patients were assigned to a cricoid pressure (Sellick group) or a sham procedure group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was the incidence of pulmonary aspiration (at the glottis level during laryngoscopy or by tracheal aspiration after intubation). It was hypothesized that the sham procedure would not be inferior to the cricoid pressure. The secondary end points were related to pulmonary aspiration, difficult tracheal intubation, and traumatic complications owing to the tracheal intubation or cricoid pressure. Results: Of 3472 patients randomized, mean (SD) age was 51 (19) years and 1777 (51%) were men. The primary end point, pulmonary aspiration, occurred in 10 patients (0.6%) in the Sellick group and in 9 patients (0.5%) in the sham group. The upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI of relative risk was 2.00, exceeding 1.50, failing to demonstrate noninferiority (P = .14). The risk difference was -0.06% (2-sided 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.42) in the intent-to-treat population and -0.06% (2-sided 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.43) in the per protocol population. Secondary end points were not significantly different among the 2 groups (pneumonia, length of stay, and mortality), although the comparison of the Cormack and Lehane grade (Grades 3 and 4, 10% vs 5%; P <.001) and the longer intubation time (Intubation time >30 seconds, 47% vs 40%; P <.001) suggest an increased difficulty of tracheal intubation in the Sellick group. Conclusions and Relevance: This large randomized clinical trial performed in patients undergoing anesthesia with RSI failed to demonstrate the noninferiority of the sham procedure in preventing pulmonary aspiration. Further studies are required in pregnant women and outside the operating room. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02080754.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaCricoid CartilageDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePneumonia, AspirationPressureTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30347104
PMCPMC6439856
OpenAlexW2896174464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.