ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Insertion of four different types of supraglottic airway devices by emergency nurses. A mannequin-based simulation study.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05544838 (Simulation Based Comparison Of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Technique In Novice Anesthesiologists. A Randomised Control Crossover Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Simulation Based Comparison Of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Technique In Novice Anesthesiologists. A Randomised Control Crossover Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-Based Comparison of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Techniques in Novice Anesthesiologists: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Articulating Video Stylet Compared to Other Techniques for Endotracheal Intubation in Normal Airways: A Simulation Study in Consultants with No Prior Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the New SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring medical emergencies, one of the main steps to improve patient outcomes is to achieve airway management. Orotracheal intubation is highly effective for advanced airway management, but it requires experienced health professionals. The use of a supraglottic airway device (SAD) is an acceptable alternative.
aimTo assess which of the four considered SADs takes the shortest time and the lowest number of attempts to be correctly placed. The secondary aim was to evaluate the influence of some characteristics of the study population on time taken and number of attempts required.
methodsA crossover trial was conducted at the Advanced Medical Simulation Center of the University of Perugia (Italy) between June and September 2017. Eighty-three nurses were enrolled in the study. Each participant was asked to place four different SADs in a manikin: Laryngeal Tube Suction-D (LTS-D), i-gel™, Ambu® Laryngeal Mask AuraGain™ and LMA® Protector™ Cuff Pilot™.
resultsThe median insertion time for the different devices was: 8.0 seconds (s) for LTS-D, 6.0 s for i-gel, 5.4 s for AuraGain, 5.8 s for LMA Protector (p<0.05); the median number of insertion attempts was: 2 for LTS-D, 1 for i-gel, AuraGain and LMA Protector (p<0.05). There was no significant relationship between insertion time and attempts required and the participants' working experience, training, or knowledge of the devices.
conclusionWith the exception of LTS-D, which had the worst performance, there was a high degree of homogeneity between the studied SADs in terms of time and attempts required to achieve correct placement.
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.