ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparison of four formulas for nasotracheal tube length estimation in pediatric patients: an observational study.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and comparison of oral endotracheal tube depth prediction formulas in children with scoliosis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Nasotracheal intubation in pediatrics: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorrect endotracheal intubation results in better ventilation, prevents hypoxia and its possible damages, such as brain injury, and minimizes attempts for re-intubation. Up to now, several formulas have been published to estimate nasotracheal intubation tube length. This study aims to compare the accuracy of different suggested formulas to find the one that better estimates the tube insertion distance.
methodsThis cross-sectional retrospective study was carried out in 102 (51 female, 51 male) children who underwent cardiac surgery under general anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were correct nasotracheal intubation according to the postintubation chest X-ray (CXR). The estimated tracheal tube length was calculated by four different formulas. Pearson...s correlation coefficient was used to find the correlations between the estimated length of each formula and the correct nasotracheal tube length. Also, linear regression was used to obtain a formula to estimate nasotracheal tube length by weight, height, and age.
resultsThe formula L=3*tube size+2 had the best correlation with tube length (r ...=...0.81, Confidence Interval: 0.732...0.878, p-value < 0.001). Among demographic variables, height had the highest correlation coefficient with the tube length (r...=...0.83, Confidence Interval: 0.788...0.802, p-value < 0.001). Therefore, considering the height as an independent variable and tube length as a dependent variable, using linear regression, the following formula was achieved for determining tube length: nasotracheal tube length...=...0.1*Height+7.
conclusionsThe formula L=3*tube size+2 and the new suggested formula in this study can be used to estimate nasotracheal tube length in children under 4 years old. However, these formulas are only guides and require confirmation by auscultation and CXR.
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.