ArticleHeliyon2024
Confirmatory methods for endotracheal tube placement in out-of-hospital settings: A systematic review of the literature.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Airway management in the obstetric patient: management strategyRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2026Review
- Seeing beyond the numbers: capnography as a vital tool in pediatric emergency care.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of clinical, capnography and ultrasonography methods for ETT placement: An observational study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Management of the Emergency Airway: Clinical Considerations and Practical Strategies for Resident Physicians.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Confirming proper placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) is important, as accidental misplacements may occur and lead to critical injuries, potentially leading to adverse outcomes. Multiple methods are available for determining the correct ETT placement in prehospital care. Objective: To assess the accuracy and reliability of the different methods used to confirm endotracheal intubation in prehospital settings. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies that were published between 1-June-1992 and 12-June-2022 using a combination of predetermined search terms. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included and assessed for risk of bias using "Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention" tool. Results: Of the 1016 identified studies, nine met the inclusion criteria. Capnography and point-of-care ultrasound showed high sensitivity and specificity rates when applied to confirm ETT placement in prehospital care. Other methods including capnometry, colorimetric detectors, ODDs, and auscultation showed varied sensitivity and specificity. Patient comorbidities and device failure contributed to decreased accuracy rates in prehospital care. Capnography was less reliable in distinguishing between endotracheal intubation and right main stem intubation, which is known as a complication in out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation. Point-of-care ultrasound was more accurate and reliable in detecting oesophageal and endobronchial misplacements. ETCO Conclusion: This systematic review showed that there is no single method with 100% accuracy in confirming the correct ETT placement and detecting the occurrence of accidental oesophageal or endobronchial misplacements in prehospital care. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to assess the accuracy of multiple confirmatory methods in prehospital settings.
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.