Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37057224›Full record

ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2023

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Types of Commercial Endotracheal Tube Holders, with the Conventional Method in a Manikin Model.

Mehdi Nasr Isfahani, Alireza Abootalebi, Khatere Ghaznavi, Leila Kamali Dolatabadi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 92% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mehdi Nasr IsfahaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Alireza AbootalebiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Khatere GhaznaviDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Leila Kamali DolatabadiAl-Zahra Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation is employed to create a safe airway in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The relatively high prevalence rate of unplanned displacement of the endotracheal tube (ETT) can be associated with serious complications. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly designed tube holder in Iran (Irafit), the Thomas ETT holder and the traditional method using adhesive tape. Materials and Methods: The present manikin-based study was performed on the human mannequin. For this purpose, the mannequin was first subjected to oral intubation by a skilled emergency medicine specialist. Then, three methods of adhesive tape, Irafit-ETT holder, and Thomas-ETT holder were used. The mean of displacement in width of the mouth, length of the ETT, and depth as well as ETT removal was recorded. Results: The results of the present study revealed that the displacement in depth was significantly less in the Irafit-ETT holder as compared with the other two groups following the application of a tug ( Conclusion: According to the results of the present study, it can be stated that both ETT holder devices (Thomas vs. Irafit) were not distinct in terms of displacements in length and width; however, the Iranian model was more successful in minimizing the displacement in depth.

Indexed as

Adhesive tapeAnesthesiaEndotrachealEndotracheal Intubationventilation

Identifiers

PMID37057224
PMCPMC10086637
OpenAlexW4365484882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.