Figure 1.
Flow chart demonstrating the process for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
Table 1.
Summary of included studies.
Table 2.
Quality assessment of included studies.
Table 3.
Meta-analysis results for each outcome.
Figure 2.
Forest plot displaying the pooled summary performance of the LMA-Supreme™ versus the i-gel™: A) oropharyngeal leak pressure, B) grade 3 and 4 fiberoptic view, C) device insertion time, D) first attempt insertion success, E) ease of gastric tube insertion.
SD = standard deviation; IV = weighted mean difference; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom; Chi2 = chi-square statistic; p = p value; I2 = I-square heterogeneity statistic; Z = Z statistic; RR = risk ratio; WMD = weight mean difference.
Figure 3.
Forest plot displaying the pooled summary of adverse effects of the LMA-Supreme™ versus the i-gel™: A) sore throat, B) blood on removal.
SD = standard deviation; IV = weighted mean difference; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom; Chi2 = chi-square statistic; p = p value; I2 = I-square heterogeneity statistic; Z = Z statistic; RR = risk ratio; WMD = weight mean difference.
Table 4.
Meta-regression results of variables for oropharyngeal leak pressure.
Figure 4.
Funnel plot of randomized controlled trials.