Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25479112›Full record

Trial reportCritical care medicine2015

Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.

Michael J Silverberg, Nan Li, Samuel O Acquah, Pierre D Kory

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 69 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
20.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT02769221 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of the Initial Intubation Success Rate Between Video Laryngoscope and Rigid Video Stylet in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2016 to 2018Enrolled370ConditionsIntubation, IntratrachealArmsRigid video stylet, Video laryngoscope
NCT02837055 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Randomized Study in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Endotracheal Intubation: Comparison Between a Conventional Approach and Video Assisted Intubation by the VivaSight™-SL Tube

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2016 to 2018Enrolled54ConditionsRespiratory InsufficiencyArmsVivaSight intubation, conventional intubation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Michael J SilverbergDepartment of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY.
Nan Li
Samuel O Acquah
Pierre D Kory
Mount Sinai Beth Israel · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn the critically ill undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, multiple attempts are often required with a higher complication rate due to the urgency, uncontrolled setting, comorbidities, and variability in expertise of operators. We hypothesized that Glidescope video laryngoscopy would be superior to direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation.

designSingle-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

settingBeth Israel Medical Center, an 856-bed urban teaching hospital with a 16-bed closed medical ICU. PATIENTS: Of 153 consecutive patients undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation by pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows, 117 met inclusion criteria.

interventionsPatients undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation were randomized to Glidescope video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy as the primary intubation device. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe primary outcome measure was the rate of first-attempt success. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were similar between groups (20.9 ± 8.2 vs 19.9 ± 7.9). First-attempt success was achieved in 74% of the Glidescope video laryngoscopy group compared with 40% in the direct laryngoscopy group (p < 0.001). All unsuccessful direct laryngoscopy patients were successfully intubated with Glidescope video laryngoscopy, 82% on the first attempt. There was no significant difference in rates of complications between direct laryngoscopy and Glidescope video laryngoscopy: esophageal intubations (7% vs 0%; p = 0.05), aspiration events (7% vs 9%; p = 0.69), desaturation (8% vs 4%; p = 0.27), and hypotension (13% vs 11%; p = 0.64).

conclusionsGlidescope video laryngoscopy improves the first-attempt success rate during urgent endotracheal intubation performed by pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows when compared with direct laryngoscopy.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAgedAPACHEFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleProspective StudiesVideo-Assisted Surgery

Identifiers

PMID25479112
OpenAlexW2316748749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.