Trial reportBioMed research international2015
Comparison of Direct and Indirect Laryngoscopes in Vomitus and Hematemesis Settings: A Randomized Simulation Trial.
Trial report 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges, Innovations, and Training in Airway Management During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Coping with airway emergencies: Get, Set, Go!Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Review
- Video laryngoscopy in pre-hospital critical care - a quality improvement study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Observational
- Suction Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination (SALAD): A technique for improved emergency airway management.Resuscitation plusReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of hematemesis or vomitus. We compared the utility of the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) and McGRATH MAC (McGRATH), which are videolaryngoscopes, in simulated hematemesis and vomitus settings.
methodsSeventeen anesthesiologists with more than 1 year of experience performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH under normal, hematemesis, and vomitus simulations.
resultsIn the normal setting, the intubation success rate was 100% for all three laryngoscopes. In the hematemesis settings, the intubation success rate differed significantly among the three laryngoscopes (P = 0.021). In the vomitus settings, all participants succeeded in tracheal intubation with McL or McGRATH, while five failed in the AWS trial with significant difference (P = 0.003). The intubation time did not significantly differ in normal settings, while it was significantly longer in the AWS trial compared to McL or McGRATH trial in the hematemesis or vomitus settings (P < 0.001, compared to McL or McGRATH in both settings).
conclusionThe performance of McGRATH and McL can be superior to that of AWS for tracheal intubation in vomitus and hematemesis settings in adults.
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.