Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32695160›Full record

ReviewAnesthesiology research and practice2020

Effect of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion on Intraocular Pressure Response: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mohammed Suleiman Obsa, Zewde Zema Kanche, Robera Olana Fite, Tilahun Saol Tura, Bulcha Guye Adema, Aseb Arba Kinfe, Melkamu Worku Kercho, Kebreab Paulos Chanko, Getahun Molla Shanka, Atkuregn Alemayehu Lencha and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammed Suleiman ObsaSchool of Anesthesia, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6579-1136
Zewde Zema KancheSchool of Pharmacy, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-0399
Robera Olana FiteSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3992-891X
Tilahun Saol TuraSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-7467
Bulcha Guye AdemaSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-9732
Aseb Arba KinfeSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7026-6731
Melkamu Worku KerchoSchool of Midwifery, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.
Kebreab Paulos ChankoSchool of Midwifery, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8298-5568
Getahun Molla ShankaSchool of Medicine, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.
Atkuregn Alemayehu LenchaSchool of Public Health, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.
Gedion Asnake AzezeSchool of Midwifery, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6347-8648
Lolemo Kelbiso HanforeSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0005-0599
Nefsu Awoke AduloSchool of Nursing, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1037-5004
Blen Kassahun DessuSchool of Anesthesia, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.
Getahun Dendir WoldeSchool of Anesthesia, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.
Shimelash Bitew WorkieSchool of Public Health, Wolaita Soddo University, Wolaita Soddo, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6159-6309
Wolaita Sodo University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of laryngeal mask airway as an alternative to the endotracheal tube has attracted the attention of several workers with regard to intraocular pressure changes. However, the previous studies have reported different results while comparing intraocular pressure, following insertion of laryngeal mask airway or the endotracheal tube. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to generate the best possible evidence on the intraocular pressure response to endotracheal tube intubation and laryngeal mask airway insertion.

methodsElectronic databases like PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane library databases, and Mednar were used. All original peer-reviewed papers which reported the mean and standard deviation of IOP before and after airway instrumentation in both groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data using a standardized data extraction format for eligibility and appraised their quality. Data were analyzed using the STATA version 14 software. The pooled standard mean difference was estimated with the random-effect model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the

resultA total of 47 research papers were reviewed, of which, six studies were finally included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled standard mean difference of intraocular pressure was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.70, 1.90), showing that LMA insertion is better than ETT intubation to maintain stable intraocular pressure. A random-effect model was employed to estimate the pooled standard mean differences due to severe heterogeneity (

conclusionThe available information suggests that the LMA provides lesser intraocular pressure response in comparison with the conventional tracheal tube.

Identifiers

PMID32695160
PMCPMC7368206
OpenAlexW3041095049

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.