ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Comparison of BlockBuster
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the BlockbusterTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The available supraglottic devices (SGDs) used as conduits for fibreoptic bronchoscope-guided intubation (FOI) in children have shown no difference in terms of time taken for tracheal intubation or success rate on the first attempt. However, several difficulties have been reported during the removal of the SGD after FOI. This study aimed to compare the feasibility of the safe removal of conduits after FOI through BlockBuster Methods: This was a randomised comparative study conducted on 66 children between the ages of 1 and 8 years undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. FOI was performed using BlockBuster or Air-Q as a conduit in study groups. The primary outcome was the time taken and the ease of removing the conduit after FOI. The secondary outcomes included adverse events during conduit removal. We also compared the number of attempts and time taken for the successful placement of these SGDs, as well as for FOI utilising them as conduits. An independent samples Results: The ease of removing the conduit was comparable in both groups ( Conclusion: For FOB-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients, BlockBuster is comparable to Air-Q, and it may be a useful alternative.
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.