Trial reportTrials2021
Comparison of a tube core and Magill forceps for nasotracheal intubation: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagill forceps are frequently used to complete nasotracheal intubation (NTI). We aimed to identify a tube core that could conveniently facilitate the NTI process without using Magill forceps.
methodsSixty patients scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgeries were enrolled in our study and divided into two groups (30 per group) with no differences with regard to demographic data. In the Magill forceps group (Group M), a wire-reinforced endotracheal catheter was inserted into the trachea using Magill forceps. However, in the tube core group (Group T), a tube core bent to the physiological curve of the nasal cavity and lubricated with aseptic paraffin oil was inserted into the endotracheal catheter and was then withdrawn after the endotracheal catheter was advanced through the glottis under direct vision.
resultsAll NTIs were completed successfully, and Magill forceps were not used on any patient in Group T. There was a significant difference in total NTI time between the two groups (Group M, 59.7 (5.1) s vs Group T, 52.4 (3.1) s). Mild epistaxis was observed in 6 patients in Group M and 5 patients in Group T (6/30 vs 5/30, respectively). No damage to oral tissue or teeth was observed in either group.
conclusionsWe conclude that using a tube core, consisting of a disposable sterilised stylet, is a convenient choice for NTI.
trial registrationPatient enrolment was conducted after registration in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.Chictr.org.cn , ChiCTR190002 7387). This trial was prospectively registered on 11 November 2019.
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.