Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25968006›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Hyuk Joong Choi, Young-Min Kim, Young Min Oh, Hyung Goo Kang, Hyun Woo Yim, Seung Hee Jeong, Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR) investigators

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyuk Joong ChoiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
Young-Min KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Young Min OhDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Hyung Goo KangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun Woo YimDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea Clinical Research Coordination Center, Catholic Medical Center, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Hee JeongClinical Research Coordination Center, Catholic Medical Center, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR) investigators
Catholic University of Korea · KRHanyang University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate whether the use of a GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) improves first-attempt intubation success compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in the emergency department (ED).

designA propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry-the Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR).

setting4 academic EDs located in a metropolitan city and a province in South Korea.

participantsA total of 4041 adult patients without cardiac arrest who underwent emergency intubation from January 2007 to December 2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and secondary outcomes were successful first intubation attempt and intubation failure, respectively. To reduce the selection bias and potential confounding effects, we rigorously adjusted for the baseline differences between two groups using a propensity score matching.

resultsOf the 4041 eligible patients, a GVL was initially used in 540 patients (13.4%). Using 1:2 propensity score matching, 363 and 726 patients were assigned to the GVL and MAC groups, respectively. The adjusted relative risks (95% CIs) for the first-attempt success rates with a GVL compared with a MAC were 0.76 (0.56 to 1.04; p=0.084) and the respective intubation failure rates 1.03(0.99 to 1.07; p=0.157). Regarding the subgroups, the first-attempt success of the senior residents and attending physicians was lower with the GVL (0.47 (0.23 to 0.98), p=0.043). In the patients with slight intubation difficulty, the first-attempt success was lower (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88), p=0.008) and the intubation failure was higher with the GVL (1.07 (1.02 to 1.13), p=0.008).

conclusionsIn this propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry, the overall first-attempt intubation success and failure rates did not differ significantly between GVL and MAC in the ED setting. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesEmergency Service, HospitalLaryngoscopesVideo RecordingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAirway ManagementFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID25968006
PMCPMC4431126
OpenAlexW1915561529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.