ReviewGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2025
Comparative analysis of supraglottic airway vs. infraglottic airway in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of supraglottic airway (SGA) vs. infraglottic airway (IGA) in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Background: To optimize patient outcomes by improving airway control, various airway techniques have been employed for sedation during ERCP. However, there is uncertainty about the noninferiority of SGA devices compared to IGA. Methods: We performed a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, searching for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing SGA vs. IGA in patients undergoing ERCP and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The primary outcomes were procedure time, incidence of hypoxia, and blood staining events. Statistical analyses were performed using R language 4.3.1. Odds ratio (OR) was used for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I² statistics. Results: The study comprised 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 3 observational studies involving 280 patients. Among them, 160 were allocated to the SGA group and 120 to the IGA group. When comparing procedure times, there was no statistically significant difference between SGA and IGA (MD -1.51 minutes; 95% CI -6.10 to 3.09 minutes; p = 0.52; I² = 62%). Regarding blood staining, statistical significance favored IGA over SGA (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.12 to 6.41, p = 0.027; I² = 0%). Conclusion: No statistically significant difference in procedure time was observed between SGA and IGA. However, IGA exhibited a favorable outcome regarding reduced blood staining compared to SGA. Further studies comparing similar outcomes are necessary to assess such associations better.
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.