Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34104162›Full record

ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences

Post operative sore throat: Comparison between Macintosh versus Video Laryngoscope in patients intubated by trainee anaesthetists - A Randomised Control Trial.

Amin Ahmed Kapadia, Faraz Shafiq, Amir Raza

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amin Ahmed KapadiaAmin Ahmed Kapadia Senior Medical Officer, Department of Anaesthesiology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Faraz ShafiqFaraz Shafiq Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Amir RazaAmir Raza Statistician, Department of Anaesthesiology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPostoperative sore throat (POST) is a common complication related to endotracheal intubation. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of POST in patients intubated by trainee anaesthetist using Video Laryngoscope™ (VDL) or Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope (CL).

methodsTotal 110 patient scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included from main operating room of Aga Khan University Hospital between June 2017-2018. The standardized perioperative protocol was used for general anaesthesia. Selected patients were randomly allocated into conventional laryngoscopy (CL) group or video laryngoscopy (VDL) group. The evaluation of sore throat was done at 1st, 12th and 24th hour postoperatively using a ten-point visual analogue scale.

resultsThe demographic characteristics, including intubation time, related complications or any other maneuver required were similar between the groups. The incidence of POST at 1st hour was 47% patients in CL group and 38% in VDL group (p=0.335). At 12th hour, 34.5% patients in CL and 38% in VDL reported POST (p=0.692). Similarly at 24th hour, 25% patients in CL and 16% in VDL group reported POST (p=0.669).

conclusionsThere was no significant difference in incidence of POST for patients intubated by trainee anaesthetists using either CL or VDL. Objective evidence of training and laryngoscope technique can impact of POST.

Indexed as

AnesthetistsLaryngoscopesSore throat

Identifiers

PMID34104162
PMCPMC8155434
OpenAlexW3135810044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.