ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Comparison of bag-valve-device ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation with laryngeal tube evo in intra-arrest ventilation-a prospective randomized study in human body donors.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the effects of the new supraglottic airway device known as laryngeal tube evo on target parameters of ventilation therapy during mechanical chest compressions in intra-arrest ventilation with bag-valve-device ventilation vs. volume-controlled ventilation.
methodsThiel-embalmed human body donors were included in a standardized resuscitation scenario. Ventilation was performed in a randomized order using the laryngeal tube evo for bag-valve-device ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Expiratory (Vt
resultsFive body donors were included. Although one donor (20%) was successfully ventilated with all ventilation modes, three could only be ventilated with one of the modes (bag-valve-device ventilation = 20%; volume-controlled ventilation = 40%). One donor (20%) could not be sufficiently ventilated with any of the modes. Mean Vt
conclusionsComparing volume-controlled ventilation with bag-valve-device ventilation for asynchronous ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation using the laryngeal tube evo, volume-controlled ventilation resulted in higher Vt
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register; unique identifier: DRKS00037836. Registered on September 09, 2025 [1].
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.