ArticleInternational journal of applied & basic medical research
Clinical Performance of I-gel
Article in International journal of applied & basic medical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of different muscle relaxation depths on the placement of the i-gel laryngeal mask and the analysis of influencing factors on postoperative sore throat: a retrospective study based on general anesthesia in adult patients.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Supraglottic devices have revolutionized the current practice of airway management. We compared the clinical performance of a recently introduced BlockBuster™ Laryngeal mask airway with i-gel Methods: Following Institutional ethical clearance, the present study was conducted on 62 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 of either sex in the age group of 20-60 years under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to i-gel Results: Mean insertion time of device was less in Group I (13.52 ± 2.58 s) than that of Group B (14.10 ± 2.04 s), which was neither clinically nor statistically significant ( Conclusions: Both the devices are useful and effective for airway management in adult under general anesthesia. Having a high OLP and comparable insertion time, risk of aspiration may be further reduced with the use of BlockBuster™ in comparison to i-gel
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.