MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401611456 · doi:10.2344/22-00033

Comparison of Anesthetics for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion: A Network Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4401611456 on OpenAlex
Cameron Goertzen, Erin Goertzen, Maryam Zanjir, Christopher Dare, Amir Azarpazhooh, Michelle Wong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia Progress · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPropofolAdverse effectLaryngeal mask airwayApneaAirwayIncidence (geometry)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aimed to establish which anesthetic agents are associated with minimized adverse outcomes during laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. Methods: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II adult patients (≥15 years of age) receiving general anesthesia (GA) with an LMA. Propofol only was the comparator to other anesthetics used during LMA insertion. The primary outcome was prolonged apnea, and secondary outcomes were adverse airway events, LMA insertion failure, inadequate depth of anesthesia, and hemodynamic events. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the treatment effects (odds ratios, 95% credible intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]). Results: A total of 28 anesthetic combinations used on 4695 patients for GA induction and LMA insertion were examined across 53 RCTs. Overall, there was an apnea incidence rate of 33.3% (849 of 2548) with a mean time of 3.74 ± 3.56 minutes (n = 3091). Propofol + dexmedetomidine had the highest overall summed score of SUCRA ranks in reducing adverse outcomes (apnea incidence: SUCRA = 37%, apnea time: SUCRA = 66%, airway adverse event: SUCRA = 67%, insertion failure: SUCRA = 73%, inadequate depth of anesthesia: SUCRA = 84%). In comparison among all propofol combinations, propofol alone ranked lowest for overall summed score of SUCRA in reducing adverse outcomes (apnea incidence: SUCRA = 47%, apnea time: SUCRA = 71%, airway adverse event: SUCRA = 9%, insertion failure: SUCRA = 20%, inadequate depth of anesthesia: SUCRA = 9%). Conclusion: All anesthetic combinations, other than those with thiopental, reduced adverse outcomes as compared with propofol alone. The combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine infused over 10 minutes ranked as the most effective for reducing adverse outcomes during LMA insertion.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.239
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it