ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Ramped versus sniffing position for videolaryngoscopy-guided tracheal intubation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
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. 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
Background and Aims: The sniffing position is required for direct laryngoscopy to align the oropharyngeal-laryngeal axis in the line of sight. However, videolaryngoscope (VL)-guided intubation may not need a sniffing position. This meta-analysis compared intubation using VL in the sniffing position versus ramped or head-elevated positions. Methods: This prospective systematic review and meta-analysis included randomised controlled trials comparing VL in a ramped or head-elevated position with the sniffing position in adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was time for intubation. The secondary outcomes included the first attempt success and the glottic view during intubation. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted for the primary outcome. Results: This review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Four studies were included, with 341 patients (173 in the ramped and 168 in the sniffing position). The pooled data showed that intubation time was comparable in the ramped as well as in the sniffing position [standard mean difference: -0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.59, 0.11; Conclusion: The current meta-analysis suggests that during VL, the intubation time, first-attempt success, and glottic view were comparable in both ramped and sniffing positions. However, high heterogeneity makes the results less robust.
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.