SynthesisActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Endotracheal Tube Sizes During Surgical Procedures in Adult Patients. A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses.
Synthesis in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review.Anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Prophylactic esketamine for postoperative sore throat: a meta-analysis of randomized evidence.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Lidocaine Delivery Systems for Preventing Postoperative Sore Throat: From Direct Spray to Soft Mist.Local and regional anesthesia · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the long-standing practice of endotracheal intubation, limited attention has been given to perioperative complications and benefits of choosing different sizes of endotracheal tubes. This review examines the existing literature to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of selecting different tube sizes for adult surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective procedures.
methodsThis review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with postoperative sore throat after intubation. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of participants with postoperative hoarseness after intubation, re-intubations, airway injury caused by intubation or use of instruments related to intubation, adverse events, and serious adverse events. A comprehensive search was conducted in CENTRAL, OVID, and EMBASE. The last search was performed on February 10, 2025, and included only randomized clinical trials. Meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations were performed.
resultsThe search identified 20 860 articles, which resulted in 45 full-text screenings. After further exclusions, six trials met the inclusion criteria, including 917 patients. The performed meta-analyses for smaller versus larger tube sizes found a significant reduction in favor of small tube sizes for sore throat after 1 and 24 h postoperatively and for hoarseness 1 and 24 h postoperatively. No significant difference was found between smaller and larger tube sizes for adverse events and airway injury. No trial sequential analysis obtained the required information size, but the Z-curve crossed the upper boundary, indicating a reliable significance. All included trials had a high risk of bias and very low to moderate quality of evidence.
conclusionThe findings suggest that selecting a smaller tube size for endotracheal intubation may potentially enhance patient comfort and recovery. Because of the high risk of bias and very low to moderate certainty of evidence, there is a need for more robust, high-quality research in this area.
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.