ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Deep extubation versus no-touch awake extubation in adults undergoing elective laparotomy: A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Tracheal extubation is a vulnerable phase of general anaesthesia. Smooth extubation strategies aim to reduce cough, bucking, and the sympathetic surge. This trial compared deep extubation with no-touch awake extubation in adults undergoing elective laparotomy. Methods: This prospective, randomised, partially outcome-assessor-blinded trial enroled American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II adults scheduled for elective laparotomy, allocated to deep extubation (Group D) or no-touch awake extubation (Group N). The primary outcome was cough (grade ≥1) within five minutes of extubation. Secondary outcomes were cough severity, airway adverse events, airway support, haemodynamics, and recovery characteristics. Results: Seventy patients (35 per group) were analysed. Cough occurred in 3 (8.6%) patients in Group D and 8 (22.9%) in Group N ( Conclusion: Deep extubation did not significantly reduce cough and was associated with more airway-related adverse events and airway support needs, including reintubation. Shorter recovery times and less moderate-to-severe cough in Group D did not reduce these risks. The findings do not support routine use of deep extubation and need confirmation in a larger, adequately powered trial.
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.