28 research outputs found
Fig 5 -
Forest plot for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for insertion time (A); gastric tube placement first insertion success rate (B); blood staining on the SADs (C). CI, confidence interval; I2, I-square heterogeneity statistic; IV, inverse variance.</p
Subgroup meta-analysis for oropharyngeal leak pressure with i-gelâ„¢ and LMA ProSealâ„¢.
Subgroup meta-analysis for oropharyngeal leak pressure with i-gelâ„¢ and LMA ProSealâ„¢.</p
Fig 4 -
Forest plot for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for insertion success rate at the first attempt (A); and ease of insertion (B). CI, confidence interval; I2, I-square heterogeneity statistic; IV, inverse variance.</p
Fig 7 -
Forest plot for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for sore throat (A); laryngospasm (B); cough (C). CI, confidence interval; I2, I-square heterogeneity statistic; IV, inverse variance.</p
Fig 6 -
Funnel plots for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for ease of insertion (A); insertion time (B).</p
Forest plot for comparison of i-gel<sup>TM</sup> and LMA ProSeal<sup>TM</sup> for OLP (cmH<sub>2</sub>O).
CI, confidence interval; I2, I-square heterogeneity statistic; IV, inverse variance.</p
Fig 8 -
Funnel plots for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for sore throat (A); and blood staining (B).</p
Fig 3 -
Funnel plots for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for OLP (A) and insertion success rate at the first attempt (B).</p