ArticleEmergency medicine international2013
Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06436196 (Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Elective Airway Management in Pediatrics Anesthesia, Comparison of Out-comes), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Elective Airway Management in Pediatrics Anesthesia, Comparison of Out-comes
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Trial
- Simulation Platforms to Train and Assess Pediatric Acute Care Procedural Skills: A Scoping Review.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation in Pediatric Patients.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2023Article
- Success rate and duration of orotracheal intubation of premature infants by healthcare providers with different levels of experience using a video laryngoscope as compared to direct laryngoscopy in a simulation-based setting.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Intubation of a Paediatric Manikin in Tongue Oedema and Face-to-Face Simulations by Novice Personnel: a Comparison of Glidescope, Airtraq and Direct Laryngoscopy.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2016Article
- Displacement of deciduous tooth into hypopharynx due to endotracheal intubation.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2016Article
- Effects of an elevated position on time to tracheal intubation by novice intubators using Macintosh laryngoscopy or videolaryngoscopy: randomized crossover trial.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2015Article
- A missing tooth after intubation.BMJ case reports · 2014Article
- Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
- Article
- Evolution of videolaryngoscopy in pediatric population.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyReview
- A comparative study of the efficacy of Glidescope versus Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for intubation in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective. To compare novice clinicians' performance using GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL). Methods. This was a prospective, randomized crossover study. Incoming pediatric interns intubated pediatric simulators in four normal and difficult airway scenarios with GVL and DL. Primary outcomes included time to intubation and rate of successful intubation. Interns rated their satisfaction of the devices and chose the preferred device. Results. Twenty-five interns were included. In the normal airway scenario, there were no differences in mean time for intubation with GVL or DL (61.4 versus 67.4 seconds, P = NS) or number of successful intubations (19 versus 18, P = NS). In the difficult airway scenario, interns took longer to intubate with GVL than DL (87.7 versus 61.3 seconds, P = 0.018), but there were no differences in successful intubations (14 versus 15, P = NS). There was a trend towards higher satisfaction for GVL than DL (7.3 versus 6.4, P = NS), and GVL was chosen as the preferred device by a majority of interns (17/25, 68%). Conclusions. For novice clinicians, GVL does not improve time to intubation or intubation success rates in a pediatric simulator model of normal and difficult airway scenarios. Still, these novice clinicians overall preferred GVL.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.