Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2022
Comparison of rotational and standard methods of i-gel® insertion in patients of advanced age undergoing general anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A nomogram predicting the OS and CSS of ≥ T1b renal cell carcinoma patients after surgery.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- In Vitro Synergistic Activity of Rifampicin Combined with Minimal Effective Antibiotic Concentration (MEAC) of Polymyxin B Against Extensively Drug-Resistant, Carbapenem-, and Polymyxin B-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Isolates.Current microbiology · 2024Article
- Airway Management During Diagnostic Laparoscopic Surgery: A Comparison of I-Gel and Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was performed to compare the performance of rotational versus standard insertion of the i-gel® (Intersurgical, Wokingham, Berkshire, England) in patients of advanced age.
methodsThis single-center, randomized, double-blind trial involved 140 patients of advanced age undergoing general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into the standard group and rotational group. The primary objective of this study was to compare the success rate of the first attempt. The secondary outcome indicators were the insertion time and postoperative complications.
resultsThe placement success rate on the first attempt was significantly higher in the rotational group than in the standard group (92% vs. 73%, respectively). The overall success rate was 100% for the rotational method and 95% for the standard method. The mean ± standard deviation insertion times were similar (15 ± 7.34 vs. 14 ± 7.26 s, respectively). The incidence rates of blood staining of the i-gel®, hoarseness, and sore throat did not increase with the rotational technique and were not significantly different from those of the standard method.
conclusionCompared with the standard method, the rotational method of i-gel® insertion had a higher success rate and did not increase the insertion time and complications in patients of advanced age.Trial registration: This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000038763, Date of registration: 30/09/2020).
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.