ArticlePloS one2025
Design, 3D printing, and preclinical validation of an extraglottic ramp to facilitate blind orotracheal intubation in emergency airway management.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of devices that facilitate rapid airway isolation is essential when managing critical patients in emergencies. In recent years, additive manufacturing has emerged as an innovative, versatile, and accessible technology for developing medical devices. This study presents the design, development, and validation of an extraglottic medical device created using computer-aided design tools and stereolithographic 3D printing to facilitate blind intubation by first responders. The device was iteratively modeled and fabricated with biocompatible materials; validation in airway simulators and human cadaveric specimens assessed dimensions, friction, intubation technique, and learning curve, and ease of use was rated with a Likert scale. Ten iterations led to a final design with low friction and minimal cervical manipulation; ramp angle, cup geometry, and distal tip were optimized for tube passage, and BioMed Flex 80A showed high strength and anatomical compatibility. The final version is a safe, reusable, and functional alternative for airway management and blind orotracheal intubation, particularly in emergencies and resource-limited settings; clinical validation in live patients is still needed.
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.