Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2021
'Lip-to-Tip' study: comparison of three methods to determine optimal insertion length of endotracheal tube in neonates.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standard Nasal-Tragus Length Formula Versus Alternate Insertional Length Formula for Optimal Placement of Endotracheal Tube in Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial (SNAIL Trial).Indian pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Comparative accuracy of oro-helix length, naso-tragus length, and gestational age-based methods for endotracheal tube depth prediction in neonates ≤1,500 g.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Flexible intubating video endoscope-guided determination of optimal oral endotracheal tube depth in infants: a prospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Optimal insertion length of endotracheal tube in neonates.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this prospective observational study was to compare the incidence of endotracheal tube (ETT) malposition using weight-based (Tochen), gestation-based (Kempley), and nasotragal length (NTL) methods in deceased neonates and fresh stillbirths. We enrolled deceased neonates and fresh stillbirths within 2 ± 1 h of death or delivery, respectively; without hydrops, tracheostomy or major congenital anomalies affecting face, neck, or thorax. Each enrolled subject was intubated orotracheally, with lip-to-tip distance determined by three methods in random succession. Chest X-ray was acquired after each insertion. The primary outcome was proportion of malpositioned ETTs on chest X-ray (defined as ETT tip not lying between upper border of T1 and lower border of T2 vertebrae), assessed by two experts masked to the methods used. The proportion of malpositioned tubes was not significantly different with any of the three methods: (weight 27/50 (54%), gestation 35/50 (70%), and NTL 35/50 (70%), p value 0.055). The malpositioned tubes were too far in (87/150; 58%) than too far out (10/150; 6.7%).Conclusions: None of the currently recommended methods accurately predicts optimal ETT length in neonates. There is an urgent need for newer bedside modalities for estimating ETT position in neonates. What is known? • NRP guidelines recommend gestation-based and nasotragal length (NTL) methods to estimate initial ETT depth in neonates. Weight-based (Tochen) method is still widely used in neonatal units for ETT depth estimation. Evidence till date has not proven superiority of one method over the other. What is new? • All three methods for ETT depth estimation (Tochen, gestation-based, and NTL) resulted in high rates of ETT malposition in neonates. Formulae, devised from this study based on linear regression models, did not perform well for estimation of optimal ETT position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33389069What 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.