ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Evaluation of the New Singularity
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-vitro evaluation of the Singularity Air laryngeal mask: a randomized controlled comparison between medical personnel trained and untrained in airway management.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Trial
- Randomized Prospective Comparison of the SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Singularity™ Air Laryngeal Mask in Adult Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This randomised crossover mannequin study aimed to compare the insertion time for the newly developed SingularityTM Air and the Ambu® AuraGainTM. The SingularityTM Air includes a bendable tube in order to allow optimal passform. Methods: Fifty anaesthetists with a minimum of 100 supraglottic airway device insertions were recruited and randomly assigned to start either with the SingularityTM Air or with the Ambu® AuraGainTM. Participants watched a tutorial video the day before the assessment and received a standardized introduction immediately before the assessment. The primary outcome was the time for successful insertion. Secondary parameters were the overall insertion success rate, the numbers of insertion attempts (maximum three), the glottic view through a flexible bronchoscope, and the success rate for gastric tube insertion. Results: Fifty participants were eventually recruited and randomly assigned to insert both devices according to the randomization. The insertion time was 24 s for SingularityTM Air as compared to 20 s for Ambu® AuraGainTM (p < 0.001). Overall insertion rate was 92% for the SingularityTM Air as compared to 100% for the Ambu® AuraGainTM (p could not be derived as one variable is a constant). The primary insertion success rate was better for the Ambu® AuraGainTM than for the SingularityTM Air (94% versus 68%; p: 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: The time for successful insertion and the insertion success rate for the newly developed SingularityTM Air is inferior to that for the Ambu® AuraGainTM.
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.