SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Airway warming devices in the context of single and multimodal strategies for intraoperative hypothermia: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of airway warming devices and combined warming strategies for preventing intraoperative hypothermia.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through November 2025 that compared two or more warming strategies, including airway warming devices, in patients under general anesthesia. The primary outcome was intraoperative core temperature at the end of surgery. To establish the rank order of the evaluated warming strategies, frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were conducted and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were used.
resultsThe systematic review and NMA included 25 RCTs involving 1404 patients. At the end of surgery, heated humidifiers (HHs), HH + intravenous fluid warmer (IV), HH + IV + water mattress (WM), and the Mega Acer Kit® (MAK)-a heated-humidified breathing circuit with an integrated fluid warming unit-were associated with significantly higher core temperatures than the control group. Based on the SUCRA values, MAK ranked highest at the end of surgery, followed by HH + IV + WM. Multimodal interventions generally ranked higher than single warming methods across all assessed time points, suggesting the superiority of multimodal warming approaches. The SUCRA values from the frequentist and Bayesian models were closely aligned, indicating the robustness of the analysis.
conclusionBased on the available evidence, MAK may be the most effective among warming strategies involving airway warming devices. Overall, multimodal warming approaches may offer advantages over single-device strategies for perioperative temperature management, although the certainty of the evidence is limited. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024534439.
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.