Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32843812›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches

Evaluation of I-Gel™ versus Classic LMA™ for Airway Management by Paramedics and Medical Students: A Manikin Study.

Ashish Kumar Kannaujia, Uma Srivastava, Tapas Singh, Rudrashish Haldar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

4 authors.

Ashish Kumar KannaujiaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Uma SrivastavaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, F. H. Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Tapas SinghDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rudrashish HaldarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimAirway management is a lifesaving skill which all health-care workers should possess. Currently, most of the resuscitation councils recommend supraglottic airway devices as the technique of choice for airway management during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by health-care providers without expertise in tracheal intubation. This is because of its high first-pass success rate and easy to acquire and retain skill even by novices. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe present study was planned to compare the efficacy of two commonly available supraglottic airway devices, classic LMA (cLMA) and I-gel in securing airway in adult manikin by inexperienced persons (58 paramedics and 46 medical students), after a brief training. Our primary aim was to determine the first attempt success rate, and other parameters studied were the time and ease of insertion, overall success rate, and preference for device.

resultsThe first-attempt success rate of I-gel was higher in both groups of participants (74% in students and 69% in paramedicals) compared to that of cLMA (70% in l students and 53% in paramedics) although the overall success was the same. Majority of participants could secure airway quickly and easily by I-gel than by cLMA. More than 90% of participants preferred I-gel over cLMA.

conclusionThis study shows that inexperienced persons could learn to place the I-Gel and cLMA successfully in the manikin after a brief training in manikin. The first-attempt success rate and insertion of I-gel was easier and faster than that of cLMA by both groups of participants and most participants preferred I-gel due to ease of handling.

Indexed as

Airway managementI-gellaryngeal mask airwaymanikinmedical studentparamedics

Identifiers

PMID32843812
PMCPMC7428105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.