SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube and bronchial blocker for one-lung ventilation in patients with thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nuances of perioperative lung isolation and airway management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Double-Lumen Intubation Facilitating a Single-Anesthesia Workflow in Robot-Assisted Navigational Bronchoscopy and Subsequent Lung Resection: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Research progress in the application of double-lumen endobronchial tubes and bronchial blockers in thoracic surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube (DLBT) and bronchial blocker (BB) for one-lung ventilation (OLV) in patients with thoracic surgery.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across Chinese databases and English databases from the inception of the databases until December 31, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. A meta-analysis was then performed using Review Manager 5 and Stata 18.0 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, and a summary of findings (SoF) table was generated using GRADEprofiler Version 3.6.1.
resultsA total of 39 RCTs were included, comprising 1360 patients in the BB group and 1349 patients in the DLBT group. The excellent rate of lung collapse quality in the BB group was 0.94 times that in the DLBT group [I
conclusionThe DLBT group demonstrated certain advantages in terms of lung collapse time and quality of lung collapse. However, BB demonstrate significantly shorter positioning time compared to DLBT, and it is also associated with lower risks of multiple complications, including hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia, highlighting its safety advantage in postoperative care.
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.