ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Validation of manufacturers' laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of GMA-Tulip and i-gel supraglottic airway devices in orthopedic trauma surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- [Selection of classic laryngeal mask airway size based on ideal body mass in patients with low body mass index: a randomized trial].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023Trial
- Hyoid Cricoid Distance-Based Method Versus Weight‑Based Method for Choosing the Appropriate Size for Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway Selection in Adults.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a prominent supraglottic airway device, widely used especially in difficult airway management. However, the LMA sizes recommended by the manufacturers are not always well matched in clinical practice, which leads to complications. To date, there are rare models to validate whether the manufacturers' standard is suitable for use in clinical practice.
methodsA total of 58,956 patients undergoing general anesthesia using LMA device were included in the study between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, to validate the adherence rate of LMA sizes according to the manufacturers' recommendations. A logistic regression analysis was performed based on the actual LMA size used in clinical practice to establish separately size selection guidelines with gender, weight, and age as variables in adults, adolescents, and children.
resultsLMA insertions were analyzed in 50,776 (86.1%) adults, 3,548 (6%) adolescents, and 4,632 (7.9%) children. Suitability of manufacturers' recommendations was higher in children [male: 86.02%; female: 85.09%] than adults [male: 72.75%; female: 78.13%] or adolescents [male: 73.4%; female: 70.79%]. For adults and adolescents, LMA size was better predicted using the regression model rather than the manufacturers' recommendations [male adults: 82.4% (81.16-83.57%)
conclusionsThe model-based guidelines may provide more accurate directions for LMA size selection for adolescents and adults than the manufacturers' weight-based recommendations, whereas the manufacturers' recommendation in children is consistent with clinical practice.
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.