ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Reevaluating 30 cmH
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Secondary Pneumomediastinum Following Bronchoscopic Interventions in Patients With Prolonged Tracheostomy Intubation: A Case Series.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Lidocaine Delivery Systems for Preventing Postoperative Sore Throat: From Direct Spray to Soft Mist.Local and regional anesthesia · 2026Review
- Effect of the SAFE-CARE nursing bundle on artificial airway-related complications in adult ICU patients: a before-and-after interrupted time-series study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Precise identification of respiratory system air leakage via dynamic ventilator waveform monitoring: a controlled trial to improve mechanical ventilation care efficiency.Respiratory research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure remains contentious. In the traditional consideration that the level 30 cmH Methods: Airway mucosa damage and structural changes at 30 cmH Results: A total of 634 valid questionnaires suggested that anesthesiologists generally do not pay enough attention to ETT cuff pressure and the average established cuff pressure significantly exceeded 30 cmH Conclusion: The currently established cuff pressure of 30 cmH
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.