The GlideScope Facilitates Nasogastric Tube Insertion: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The GlideScope (Saturn Biomedical Systems, B.C., Canada) is a reusable videolaryngoscope and is considered an effective device for tracheal intubation. We designed this study to evaluate the application of this device in nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was performed at a teaching hospital on 80 adult patients who required intraoperative placement of an NGT. The patients were divided into 2 groups (the control and the GlideScope group) using computerized, random allocation software. In the control group, the NGT was inserted blindly as commonly performed in operating rooms; however, in the GlideScope group, the tube was inserted with the assistance of a GlideScope. The number of attempts for NGT insertion and the time required for inserting the NGT properly along with the occurrence of possible complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean intubation time in the GlideScope group was 27.7 +/- 20.7 s shorter than that in the control group. NGT insertion in the first attempt was successful in approximately 85% of the patients in the GlideScope group; in the control group, however, the tubes were inserted successfully after the first attempt in 57.5% of the patients. Complications were reported in 14 patients (35%) of the control group and 8 patients (20%) of the GlideScope group. CONCLUSION: GlideScope facilitates NGT insertion and reduces the duration of the procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".