SynthesisPloS one2024
Supraglottic airway devices for blind endotracheal intubation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effectiveness of supraglottic airway devices (SGDs) as a strategy for blind endotracheal intubation (ETI) was compared in this study.
methodsA systematic review of clinical trials (CTs) involving SGDs for blind ETI in patients under general anesthesia or simulation manikins, was conducted. CTs that used SGDs for fiberoptic-guided ETI and those conducted in children were excluded. Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and LILACS. The primary outcomes examined were the success rate of blind ETI and intubation time. Secondary outcomes were first-attempt intubation success rate and perceived ease of use.
resultsA total of 567 records were identified from databases, and 16 were identified through citation searches. Ultimately, 27 CTs met the inclusion criteria. The Fastrach Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA Fastrach), i-gel, Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway, and Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (S.A.L.T.) were the most used SGDs for blind ETI. LMA Fastrach was the most frequently compared device in these CTs. Among the studies in patients, LMA Fastrach and i-gel were the devices that showed the shortest intubation time, although it may be influenced by the way intubation time is assessed. The SGDs with the highest overall success rate were i-gel, S.A.L.T., LMA Fastrach, and single-use LMA Fastrach, followed by Air-Q, and the Intubating Laryngeal Tube Suction-Disposable (iLTS-D2), all achieving success rates greater than 90%. AuraGain had the lowest first-attempt and overall success rates for blind ETI with SGDs.
conclusionNew SGDs have not surpassed the LMA Fastrach effectiveness for blind ETI. The single-use LMA Fastrach combines the efficacy of the reusable LMA Fastrach with the features of other SGDs and may be a suitable replacement for them. The I-gel is also a viable alternative for blind ETI, while the AuraGain may not be recommended for this purpose.
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.