SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of endoscopy-specific dual-channel supraglottic airways for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic and transesophageal instrumentation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Airway management during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures and other transesophageal instrumentation remains challenging because the airway and procedural device share the upper aerodigestive tract. Endoscopy-specific dual-channel supraglottic airways (dc-SGAs), including the LMA Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopy-specific dc-SGAs with endotracheal tubes, other placed airway or access devices, or non-invasive oxygen therapy during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic or transesophageal instrumentation procedures. Observational studies were summarized narratively but were not included in pooled analyses. Results: Fifteen studies were included, including 13 randomized controlled trials involving 2,481 participants in the quantitative synthesis and 2 observational studies summarized narratively. Endoscopy-specific dc-SGAs showed comparable first-attempt airway device and endoscope/probe insertion success to comparator strategies and shortened airway device insertion time. Effects on endoscope/probe insertion time and endoscopist satisfaction were inconsistent and varied across comparator types. dc-SGAs reduced intraoperative hypoxemia, mainly in comparisons with non-invasive oxygen therapy. Postoperative sore throat showed a comparator-dependent pattern, with fewer events compared with endotracheal tubes but more events compared with non-invasive oxygen therapy. Conclusion: Endoscopy-specific dc-SGAs may represent a feasible intermediate airway strategy for selected patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopic and transesophageal instrumentation procedures. They may improve airway placement efficiency and, compared with non-invasive oxygen therapy, reduce hypoxemia; however, these potential benefits should be interpreted in light of comparator-dependent throat discomfort, procedure heterogeneity, and the low-to-moderate certainty of evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251182546, identifier [CRD420251182546].
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.