| Title |
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the i‐gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anaesthesia, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/anae.12772 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. de Montblanc, L. Ruscio, J. X. Mazoit, D. Benhamou |
| Abstract |
We systematically reviewed 31 adult randomised clinical trials of the i-gel(®) vs laryngeal mask airway. The mean (95% CI) leak pressure difference and relative risk (95% CI) of insertion on the first attempt were similar: 0.40 (-1.23 to 2.02) cmH2 O and 0.98 (0.95-1.01), respectively. The mean (95% CI) insertion time and the relative risk (95% CI) of sore throat were less with the i-gel: by 1.46 (0.33-2.60) s, p = 0.01, and 0.59 (0.38-0.90), p = 0.02, respectively. The relative risk of poor fibreoptic view through the i-gel was 0.29 (0.16-0.54), p < 0.0001. All outcomes displayed substantial heterogeneity, I(2) ≥ 75%. Subgroup analyses did not decrease heterogeneity, but suggested that insertion of the i-gel was faster than for first-generation laryngeal mask airways and that the i-gel leak pressure was higher than first generation, but lower than second-generation, laryngeal mask airways. A less frequent sore throat was the main clinical advantage of the i-gel. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 45% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 63% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2014.
All research outputs
#4,458,759
of 24,796,678 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#2,053
of 5,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,878
of 233,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#12
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,678 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.