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-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™.

Subgroup meta-analysis for oropharyngeal leak pressure with i-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™.</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^TM and LMA ProSeal^TM for OLP (cmH₂O).

CI, confidence interval; I2, I-square heterogeneity statistic; IV, inverse variance.</p

Characteristics of included trials.

Characteristics of included trials.</p

Fig 8 -

Funnel plots for comparison of i-gelTM and LMA ProSealTM for sore throat (A); and blood staining (B).</p

Flow chart of meta-analysis.

Flow chart of meta-analysis.</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