Trial reportScientific reports2025
Randomized controlled trial of Shikani optical stylet's one-person technique in nasotracheal intubation for children undergoing dental treatment.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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.
- J-Shaped Guidewire-Assisted Nasotracheal Intubation in the Dental Treatment of Children-A Retrospective, Observational Study.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
By comparing the application of the Shikani optical stylet (SOS) technique with that of UEscope, the effectiveness and safety of the one-person SOS technique for pediatric nasotracheal intubation (NTI) undergoing dental treatment were evaluated. In total, 60 children scheduled for elective dental treatments were randomly categorized into two groups for intubation under controlled ventilation without the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBD): SOS (n = 30) and UEscope (n = 30). The main endpoint was total intubation time, besides secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of additional assistance, and total dosage of propofol titrated for induction. The total intubation time was significantly shorter in the SOS group at 60.6 s (Q1-Q3, 56.0-65.0) compared to 76.1 s (67.0-87.0) in the UEscope group (P < 0.001). Additionally, the SOS group did not require additional assistance to expose the glottis, whereas the UEscope group required additional assistance in 15 cases (median duration of 5.8 s). The total dosage of propofol titrated for induction was 1.3 ± 0.4 mg/kg in the SOS group, whereas it was 1.6 ± 0.6 mg/kg in the UEscope group (P = 0.034). Compared to UEscope, the one-person technique of SOS requires significantly less intubation time, additional assistance, and total dosage of propofol titrated for induction for pediatric NTI undergoing dental treatment in dental clinics.Clinical trial registration. ChiCTR2400079441, 3/01/2024.
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.