Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36873587›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2022

Assessment of the Endotracheal Tube Tip Position by Bedside Ultrasound in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-sectional Study.

Seenivasan Subramani, Narayanan Parameswaran, Ramesh Ananthkrishnan, Shilpa Abraham, Muthu Chidambaram, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Mahadevan Subramanian

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. FOCUS more on POCUS.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  4. Authors' Reply on: FOCUS more on POCUS.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Seenivasan SubramaniDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3269-1702
Narayanan ParameswaranDepartment of Paediatrics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8297-5789
Ramesh AnanthkrishnanDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-6400
Shilpa AbrahamDepartment of Pediatrics, Believers Church Medical College, Thiruvalla, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-596X
Muthu ChidambaramDivision of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4962-2463
Ramachandran RameshkumarDepartment of Paediatrics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1911-3473
Mahadevan SubramanianDirector, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Ariyur, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3052-6949
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · INMadras Medical College · INSri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre · INMalankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The chest X-ray (CXR) is the standard of practice to assess the tip of the endotracheal tube (ETT) in ventilated children. In many hospitals, it takes hours to get a bedside CXR, and it has radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to find the utility of bedside ultrasound (USG), in assessing the ETT tip position in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Methods: It was a prospective study conducted in the PICU of a tertiary care center involving 135 children aged from 1 month to 60 months, requiring endotracheal intubation. In this study, the authors compared the position of the ETT tip by the CXR (gold standard) and USG. The CXR was taken in children to assess the correct position of the tip of ETT. The USG was used to measure the distance between the tip of ETT and the arch of the aorta, thrice in the same patient. The mean of the three USG readings was compared with the distance between the tip of the ETT and carina in CXR. Results: The reliability of three USG readings was tested by absolute agreement coefficient in intraclass correlation (ICC), 0.986 (95% CI: 0.981-0.989). The sensitivity and specificity of the USG in identifying the correct position of the ETT tip in children when compared to CXR were 98.10% (95% CI: 93.297-99.71%) and 50.0% (95% CI: 31.30-68.70%), respectively. Conclusion: In ventilated children <60 months of age, identifying the tip of ETTs by bedside the USG has good sensitivity (98.10%) but poor specificity (50.0%). How to cite this article: Subramani S, Parameswaran N, Ananthkrishnan R, Abraham S, Chidambaram M, Rameshkumar R,

Indexed as

Bedside ultrasoundChildrenEndotracheal tube tip position

Identifiers

PMID36873587
PMCPMC9983650
OpenAlexW4307866406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.