ArticleTranslational pediatrics2025
Characteristics of endotracheal tube design of different brands are related to proper endotracheal tube position in pediatrics: a descriptive study.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Integration of 2D and 3D Imaging Descriptors with Large Language Models for Assessing Pediatric Foreign-Body Aspiration Risk.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vocal cord markings (VCmarkings) on endotracheal tubes (ETTs) are designed to guide the proper tube placement depth. However, endobronchial intubation and cuff placement in the subglottic region still occur even when intubation depths are guided by the VCmarking. This study aimed to examine the characteristics of ETTs related to proper placement depth across different sizes and brands, including the designs of the VCmarking, cuff locations, and outer diameters (ODs). Methods: This descriptive study examined uncuffed and cuffed tubes from seven brands with inner diameters (IDs) ranging from 3.0 to 8.5 mm that were marketed in Thailand between March and August 2022. The seven brands included: 1, Ruschelit; 2, Shiley; 3, Curity; 4, Portex; 5, Unomedical; 6, Fornia; 7, Microcuff. Mark-Tip, Mark-Cuff, and Cuff-Tip distances were measured on each tube. ODs were measured between non-cuff area and the deflated cuff level. Results: A total of 98 tubes were included in the study (27 uncuffed tubes from four brands and 71 cuffed tubes from seven brands). VCmarkings were present in 79 (80.6%) tubes, while 37 tubes had more than one marking. For tubes of the same size, the Mark-Tip distances ranged from 10.0 to 40.3 mm, the Mark-Cuff distances varied from 1.2 to 30.4 mm, and the Cuff-Tip distances ranged from 10.7 to 21.2 mm. Minimal variation was observed in the OD at non-cuffed area, whereas the OD at the deflated cuff level added between 0.1 and 2.6 mm thickness to the OD of the non-cuffed area. Conclusions: We observed variations in the tube characteristics which affect intubation depth (Mark-Tip, Mark-Cuff, and Cuff-Tip distances), and OD at the deflated cuff level among different brands of tubes with the same size specifications.
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.