Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352865›Full record

ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025

Size Matters: Endotracheal Tube Sizes and Glottic Stenosis Familiarity Among Intubating Physicians.

Jason S Chwa, Elizabeth A Shuman, Karla O'Dell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jason S ChwaKeck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0897-4611
Elizabeth A ShumanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0872-869X
Karla O'DellDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Given the prevalence of post-intubation acute laryngeal injury (ALgI) and its association with glottic stenosis, greater attention has been placed on the mitigation of modifiable risk factors in patients requiring intubation, notably endotracheal tube (ETT) size. No widely accepted guidelines for adult ETT sizing exist. To better understand how factors driving ETT sizing may differ across specialties, we conducted a survey of faculty Anesthesiologists, Intensivists, and Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians. Methods: An anonymous 14-question Qualtrics survey was distributed to relevant faculty employed at a single tertiary care institution. Participants completed questions pertaining to their training, ETT sizing preferences, factors considered in decision-making, and perceived knowledge regarding risk factors of glottic stenosis. Results: A total of 103 complete responses were included, with a response rate of 55.1%. Standard ETT size was reported by 94 (91.3%) respondents to be 7.5 mm or larger in adult males and by 92 (89.3%) respondents to be 7.0 mm or larger in adult females. All respondents preferred a significantly larger ETT size for males compared to females (all Conclusions: Understanding ETT sizing among intubating physicians is critical to reducing intubation-related ALgI. Future laryngologist-led interventions may be directed toward the adoption of a predominately height-based model for ETT sizing and education on glottic stenosis. Level of Evidence: 5.

Indexed as

acute laryngeal injuryendotracheal tubeglottic stenosisintubationtrachea

Identifiers

PMID40352865
PMCPMC12064932

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.