Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22042705›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2012

Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Donald E G Griesdale, David Liu, James McKinney, Peter T Choi

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 110 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02627755 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

GlideScope® vs GlideScope® + aScope® for Managing Difficult Airways. Assessment of a New Procedure for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With Suspected Difficult Airways

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital de ManisesRan2016 to 2017Enrolled160ConditionsAirway Morbidity, Anesthesia Intubation ComplicationArmsaScope®, Glidescope®
NCT03279172 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

A Comparison of Videolaryngoscope and Direct Laryngoscope in Intraocular Pressure Changes, Throat Pain, Intubation Time and Hemodynamic Variables

TypeinterventionalSponsorDiskapi Teaching and Research HospitalRan2017 to 2017Enrolled78ConditionsIntraocular Pressure, Intubation, DifficultArmsdirect laryngoscope, videolaryngoscope
NCT05055401 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Proficiency and Efficiency of Airway Management Skills Amongst Anesthesia Providers: A Multicenter Baseline Assessment

TypeobservationalSponsorPrisma Health-UpstateRan2021 to 2025Enrolled62ConditionsAirway ManagementArmsDirect Laryngoscopy, Laryngeal Mask Airways, Video Laryngoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review of meta-analyses comparing direct laryngoscopy with videolaryngoscopy.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Donald E G GriesdaleDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. donald.griesdale@vch.ca
David Liu
James McKinney
Peter T Choi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy appears to provide better glottic visualization than direct laryngoscopy. However, it remains unclear if it translates into increased success with intubation.

methodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, and article references. We included trials in humans comparing Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy regarding the glottic view, successful first-attempt intubation, and time to intubation. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. Meta-regression was used to explore heterogeneity based on operator expertise and intubation difficulty.

resultsWe included 17 trials with a total of 1,998 patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) of grade 1 laryngoscopy (vs ≥ grade 2) for the Glidescope(®) was 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 2.5]. Significant heterogeneity was partially explained by intubation difficulty using meta-regression analysis (P = 0.003). The pooled RR for nondifficult intubations of grade 1 laryngoscopy (vs ≥ grade 2) was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9), and for difficult intubations it was 3.5 (95% CI 2.3 to 5.5). There was no difference between the Glidescope(®) and the direct laryngoscope regarding successful first-attempt intubation or time to intubation, although there was significant heterogeneity in both of these outcomes. In the two studies examining nonexperts, successful first-attempt intubation (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) and time to intubation (weighted mean difference -43 sec, 95% CI -72 to -14 sec) were improved using the Glidescope(®). These benefits were not seen with experts.

conclusionCompared to direct laryngoscopy, Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy is associated with improved glottic visualization, particularly in patients with potential or simulated difficult airways.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesEquipment DesignHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyRegression AnalysisTime and Motion StudiesVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID22042705
PMCPMC3246588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.