Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38903261›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024

Comparing the posture and comfort of anaesthesiologists during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in the head-elevated laryngoscopy position in supine position and with a 25° backup: A randomised clinical crossover trial.

R Mookambika, R V Hemanth Kumar, Archana Areti, V Jaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

R MookambikaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, MGM Healthcare, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-9642
R V Hemanth KumarDepartment of Anaesthesia, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1229-7975
Archana AretiDepartment of Anaesthesia, KMCH Institute of Health Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3288-1677
V JayaDepartment of Anaesthesia, JIPMER, Karaikal, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5007-3158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: The head-elevated laryngoscopy position (HELP) and a 25° backup have been proposed to enhance glottic visualisation, yet concerns about ergonomic discomfort hinder their widespread adoption. This study compares the comfort and posture adopted by anaesthesiologists while performing laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation with patients in HELP while in a supine position or with 25° backup. Methods: The study included 48 patients aged 18-60 years with normal airways and 12 experienced anaesthesiologists. Patients were randomised into two groups using permuted block randomisation. Anaesthesiologists performed laryngoscopy and intubation in supine HELP and 25° backup HELP positions. Anaesthesiologist's posture was determined by measuring the angles of neck, wrist, elbow, back and knee joints, which were compared using Student's Results: Both positions demonstrated comparable anaesthesiologist posture ( Conclusion: Anaesthesiologists' posture and comfort during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are similar between supine and 25° backup in patients with easy airways.

Indexed as

25° Backupergonomicshead-elevated laryngoscopy positionintratracheallaryngoscopypatient positioningposturetracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID38903261
PMCPMC11186526

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.