ArticleBioMed research international2015
A Randomized Comparison Simulating Face to Face Endotracheal Intubation of Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between video-lighted stylet (Intular Scope™) and direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with normal airway.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Trial
- Face-to-face intubation using a lightwand in a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphosis: a case report.BMC anesthesiology · 2018Article
- A comparison of direct laryngoscopy to video laryngoscopy by paramedic students in manikin-simulated airway management scenarios.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2017Article
- Sitting Nasal Intubation With Fiberoptic in an Elective Mandible Surgery Under General Anesthesia.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of face-to-face tracheal intubation and conventional head-end tracheal intubation using Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope in adults - A randomised study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEarly airway management is very important for severely ill patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of face to face intubation in four different types of laryngoscopes (Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax airway scope (AWS), Glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL), and C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC)).
methodNinety-five nurses and emergency medical technicians were trained to use the AWS, C-MAC, GVL and Macintosh laryngoscope with standard airway trainer manikin and face to face intubation. We compared VCET (vocal cord exposure time), tube pass time, 1st ventilation time, VCET to tube pass time, tube pass time to 1st ventilation time, and POGO (percentage of glottis opening) score. In addition, we compared success rate according to the number of attempts and complications.
resultVCET was similar among all laryngoscopes and POGO score was higher in AWS. AWS and Macintosh blade were faster than GVL and C-MAC in total intubation time. Face to face intubation success rate was lower in GVL than other laryngoscopes.
conclusionAWS and Macintosh were favorable laryngoscopes in face to face intubation. GVL had disadvantage performing face to face intubation.
Indexed as
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.