SynthesisPloS one2022
Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the SaCoVLM, a novel third-generation video laryngeal mask: a prospective observational pilot study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Randomized Prospective Comparison of the SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of i-gel®, Ambu® AuraGain™, Baska Mask, LMA® Protector™ for airway management of obese surgical patients - A randomised comparative study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Article
- Correction: Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Clinical Performance of I-gelInternational journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConflicting outcomes have been reported for the i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProSeal™ in children and adults during general anesthesia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that yielded wide contrast outcomes between i-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ were included in this meta-analysis.
methodsTwo authors independently identified RCTs that compared i-gel™ with LMA ProSeal™ among patients receiving general anesthesia by performing searches in EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. Discussion was adopted to resolve disagreements. Data were counted with Review Manger 5.3 and pooled by applying weighted mean difference (MD) and rlsk ratio (RR), and related 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA total of 33 RCTs with 2605 patients were included in the meta-analysis. I-gel™ provided a considerably lower oropharyngeal leak pressure [weighted average diversity (MD) = -1.53 (-2.89, -0.17), P = 0.03], incidence of blood staining on the supraglottic airway devices [RR = 0.44, (0.28, 0.69), P = 0.0003], sore throat [RR = 0.31 (0.18, 0.52), P<0.0001], and a short insertion time [MD = -5.61 (-7.71, -3.51), P<0.00001] than LMA ProSeal™. Compared with LMA ProSeal™, i-gel™ offered a significantly higher first-insertion success rate [RR = 1.03 (1.00, 1.06), P = 0.03] and ease of insertion [RR = 1.06 (1.01, 1.11), P = 0.03]. The gastric-tube-placement first insertion rate [RR = 1.04 (0.99, 1.10), P = 0.11], laryngospasm [RR = 0.76 (0.17, 3.31), P = 0.72], and cough [RR = 1.30 (0.49, 3.44), P = 0.60] between the two devices were similar.
conclusionsBoth devices could achieve a good seal to provide adequate ventilation. Compared with the used LMA ProSeal™, the i-gel™ was found to have fewer complications (blood stainning, sore throat) and offers certain advantages (short insertion time, higher first-insertion success rate and ease of insertion) in patients under general anesthesia.
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.