ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Use of the McGRATH™ MAC videolaryngoscope to evaluate the ability of anesthetists to give effective cricoid pressure: An interventional study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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.
- Post-ESOphagectomy patients presenting for General Anesthesia INduction: A systematic review of the literature (PESO-GAIN-R).Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The application of cricoid pressure (CP) for rapid sequence induction is questioned on two grounds: its effectiveness in clinical settings and its impact on the laryngeal view. The main reason cited for its ineffectiveness is the lack of knowledge and training in its correct application. This study assessed, the performance of anesthetists in applying effective CP in a clinical setting. Material and Methods: Eighty-five ASA I/II adult patients posted for elective surgery requiring oral endotracheal intubation with nasogastric tube (NGT) placement participated in the study. Eighty-five anesthetists divided into five groups based on their level of experience were randomly chosen to apply CP after induction of anesthesia. An experienced anesthetist performed videolaryngoscopy and attempted NGT insertion. The primary outcome was effectiveness of CP defined as the inability to pass the NGT into the esophageal opening. We also noted that the glottic view with and without CP and the effectiveness of CP across different levels of experience of anesthetists. Results: Of the 85 anesthetists, 61 (71.8%) applied effective CP. The effectiveness improved with experience (first-year residents-11/17 [64.7%], second-year residents-11/17 [64.7%], third-year residents-10/17 [58.8%], senior residents-13/17 [76.5%], and consultants-16/17 [94.1%]) ( Conclusion: CP is effective in occluding the esophageal lumen without hampering glottic view in the majority of the cases, and its effectiveness improves with experience.
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.