ArticleCureus2025
A Prospective Observational Study to Assess the Diagnostic Accuracy of Suprasternal Versus Subxiphoid Ultrasonography for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency of suprasternal versus subxiphoid ultrasonography for endotracheal tube (ETT) confirmation. METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study was conducted on 50 patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) 1 or 2 who were scheduled for elective surgical procedures under general anesthesia. After endotracheal intubation (ETI), tube placement was verified using three methods: suprasternal ultrasonography, visualizing the characteristic "bullet sign"; subxiphoid ultrasonography, assessing diaphragmatic motion; and continuous waveform capnography. The time required for confirmation and the diagnostic accuracy of each method were systematically recorded.
resultsSuprasternal ultrasound was significantly faster (5.58 ± 1.14 seconds) than capnography (31.50 ± 4.84 seconds) (p < 0.001) and auscultation (33.38 ± 4.58 seconds) (p < 0.001). Subxiphoid ultrasound took 20.32 ± 4.60 seconds (p < 0.001). No false positives or false negatives were observed. Both ultrasound methods showed 100% agreement with capnography.
conclusionSuprasternal and subxiphoid ultrasonography are equally accurate but faster than capnography for ETT confirmation in low-risk surgical patients. Due to its speed, suprasternal ultrasound may be preferable in time-critical scenarios.
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.