SynthesisPloS one2024
Efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopes for transesophageal echocardiography probe insertion: A trial sequential meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare videolaryngoscope (VL)-assisted transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe insertion with conventional methods in terms of efficacy and safety.
methodsSeveral major databases such as Medline and Embase were systematically searched to identified relevant studies from inception to June 2024. The primary outcome was complication rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing complications related to TEE probe insertion. Injuries at specific sites (e.g., posterior hypopharyngeal wall) from both groups were also analyzed. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate and total insertion time of VL and conventional methods.
resultsSeven trials involving 716 participants were identified. The use of VL was found to significantly reduce the complication rate (risk ratio[RR]:0.28, 95% confidence interval[CI]:0.17-0.46, P < 0.00001) and increased the first-attempt success rate [FASR] (RR:1.33, 95%CI: 1.10-1.60, P = 0.003) compared with conventional methods. These findings were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. No significant difference was found in the TEE insertion time among the two techniques (mean difference: -2.94s, 95%CI: -10.28-4.4, P = 0.43). VL significantly reduced the risk of trauma to the hypopharyngeal wall but showed no significant benefits in other areas (e.g., pyriform sinus). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the complication rate, very low for the FAS rate, and low for the TEE insertion time.
conclusionThe use of VL for TEE probe insertion is associated with a significantly lower complication rate and higher FAS rate than conventional methods. These findings suggest that VL enhances patient safety and improves the efficiency of TEE probe insertion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.