ReviewCureus2025
A Synergy of Ultrasound and Bronchoscopy in Enhancing Safety in Percutaneous Tracheostomy Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Different Techniques for Facilitating Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Patients and Their Impact on Outcomes: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Combined ultrasound localization and bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in a child with pharyngolaryngeal venous malformation: a case report.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Equal and safe use of flexible bronchoscopy in intensive care units.ERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (BPDT) and ultrasound-guided percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (USPDT) are widely employed techniques. However, USPDT provides better vascular mapping and reduces bleeding risk, while BPDT offers better tracheal entry and fewer airway complications. Their comparative efficacy and safety were systematically evaluated, with special consideration for high-risk patients, including obese and critically ill individuals with complex airway anatomy. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an in-depth literature search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, focusing on adult patients undergoing percutaneous tracheostomy with USPDT, BPDT, or both. Quality assessment indicated that most studies exhibited a low risk of bias, though concerns regarding randomization and selective reporting were noted in some cases. A meta-analysis was conducted using pooled effect sizes, procedural success rates, complication rates, and heterogeneity (I²), applying a random-effects model. Ten studies involving 1,069 patients were analyzed. The pooled analysis demonstrated a moderate positive association between USPDT and BPDT in improving procedural success and reducing complications (CI: 0.41 to 0.55, standardized mean difference = 0.48, 95%, p < 0.05). However, significant heterogeneity (I² = 72.95%) was observed, likely due to variations in study design and patient populations. USPDT and BPDT are both practical and safe for percutaneous tracheostomy, with unique advantages for different clinical scenarios. The findings support a hybrid approach integrating both modalities to enhance procedural safety and efficiency, particularly in high-risk populations. Future large-scale trials should focus on reducing heterogeneity, assessing long-term outcomes, and improving cost-effectiveness to establish best-practice guidelines for broader clinical implementation.
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.