Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532932›Full record

ReviewEmergency radiology2021

CT imaging of extraglottic airway device-pictorial review.

Tatsuya Norii, Yohsuke Makino, Kana Unuma, Natalie L Adolphi, Danielle Albright, David P Sklar, Cameron Crandall, Darren Braude

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tatsuya NoriiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6025 Lomas Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA. TaNorii@salud.unm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7428-5625
Yohsuke MakinoDepartment of Forensic Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kana UnumaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Natalie L AdolphiCenter for Forensic Imaging, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Danielle AlbrightDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6025 Lomas Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.
David P SklarCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Cameron CrandallDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6025 Lomas Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.
Darren BraudeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6025 Lomas Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.
University of New Mexico · USArizona State University · USThe University of Tokyo · JPTokyo Medical and Dental University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compared to intubation with a cuffed endotracheal tube, extraglottic airway devices (EGDs), such as laryngeal mask airways, are considered less definitive ventilation conduit devices and are therefore often exchanged via endotracheal intubation (ETI) prior to obtaining CT images. With more widespread use and growing comfort among providers, reports have now described use of EGDs for up to 24 h including cases for which clinicians obtained CT scans with an EGD in situ. The term EGD encompasses a wide variety of devices with more complex structure and CT appearance compared to ETI. All EGDs are typically placed without direct visualization and require less training and time for insertion compared to ETI. While blind insertion generally results in functional positioning, numerous studies have reported misplacements of EGDs identified by CT in the emergency department or post-mortem. A CT-based classification system has recently been suggested to categorize these misplacements in six dimensions: depth, size, rotation, device kinking, mechanical blockage of the ventilation opening(s), and injury from EGD placement. Identifying the type of EGD and its correct placement is critically important both to provide prompt feedback to clinicians and prevent inappropriate medicolegal problems. In this review, we introduce the main types of EGDs, demonstrate their appearance on CT images, and describe examples of misplacements.

Indexed as

Laryngeal MasksHumansIntubation, IntratrachealTomography, X-Ray ComputedAirway managementExtraglottic airway deviceMisplacementResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID33532932
OpenAlexW3128098556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.