Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39449841›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024

Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster

Pooja Bihani, Shivanand, Rishabh Jaju, Naveen Paliwal, Sarita Janweja, Ankit Vyas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Pooja BihaniDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8790-1466
ShivanandDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Jaipur National University Institute for Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-1234-5678-9101
Rishabh JajuDepartment of Anaesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8555-0869
Naveen PaliwalDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-4708
Sarita JanwejaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2317-0673
Ankit VyasDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Government Medical College, Pali, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0476-4986

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: The second-generation supraglottic airway device is conventionally inserted blindly, which might result in suboptimal placement. Limited literature exists on under-vision insertion techniques, particularly in paediatric patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) between the blind insertion of the LMA Blockbuster Methods: This randomised controlled trial study enroled 100 patients aged 1-4 years undergoing elective surgery. Patients were randomised into blind insertion (Group A) or Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion (Group B) of the LMA Blockbuster Results: Significantly higher mean OPLP was observed in Group B compared to Group A - 27.9 [standard deviation (SD): 1.58] cmH Conclusion: Miller laryngoscope-guided under-vision insertion of LMA Blockbuster

Indexed as

Blind insertionhaemodynamiclaryngeal mask airwaylaryngoscopeLMA Blockbusterpaediatric anaesthesiaventilation

Identifiers

PMID39449841
PMCPMC11498254

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.