Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42664432›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2026

Comparison of the Blockbuster

Arunima Pattanayak, Abhyuday Kumar, Chandni Sinha, Neeraj Kumar, Ajeet Kumar, Bindey Kumar, Rajnish Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Arunima PattanayakAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6403-1517
Abhyuday KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9247-6713
Chandni SinhaAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4107-2671
Neeraj KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9161-7000
Ajeet KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1464-6684
Bindey KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9533-8503
Rajnish KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Patna, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3085-0829

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Only two devices [air-Q Methods: Eighty patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status I and II, aged between six months and 10 years, were enrolled in this randomised controlled trial. The patients were intubated through either of the supraglottic airway devices (SADs) by visualised, blind intubation. The primary outcome was the first- attempt success rate of ETI. Secondary outcomes were the overall success rate of ETI, the oropharyngeal leak pressure, the fiberoptic glottic view, the time to intubation, and the complication rate. Results: Blockbuster Conclusion: Blockbuster

Indexed as

Airway managementfiberopticintubationpaediatric anaesthesiasupraglottic device

Identifiers

PMID42664432
PMCPMC13529068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.