Trial reportIrish journal of medical science2016
Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscope in ear-nose and throat surgery.
Trial report in Irish journal of medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing nociception level (NOL) index, blood pressure, and heart rate responses to direct laryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscopy for intubation: the NOLint project.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Trial
- Securing the Airway in Maxillofacial Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review of Techniques.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2021Article
- Randomized Prospective Comparison of Glidescope Video Laryngoscope with Macintosh Laryngoscope in Adult who Underwent Thyroid or Parathyroid Surgery Using Neuromonitorization.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEndotracheal intubation procedure employed during general anaesthesia is the most effective way for keeping the airways and respiration under control and has low risk of complications. We have aimed in this study to compare the first-attempt success and duration of the endotracheal intubation process and its effects on haemodynamics using the Macintosh laryngoscope and the GlideScope video laryngoscope.
methodsIn this prospective randomized single-centre study, 100 patients of 18-65 years of age, and classified within the American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) I-II risk groups before elective ear-nose and throat surgery were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, designated as Group M, to be intubated using the Macintosh laryngoscope, and as Group G, to be intubated using the GlideScope video laryngoscope. The Mallampati scores, Cormack-Lehane classifications, intubation duration, number of attempts at intubation, the haemodynamic response and the complications were recorded.
resultsThere were not intergroup differences with respect to the number of intubation attempts, the Mallampati and Cormack-Lehane classifications. Duration of intubation was found to be longer in group G. The haemodynamic response values of group M were higher than those of group G. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of intubation attempts, two of the patients in group M were intubated in the second attempt.
conclusionIn our study, despite the longer intubation times in group G, the haemodynamic response was significantly lower in this group. It is believed that especially in cases with vital requirement of haemodynamic stability, the GlideScope video laryngoscope would be safer to employ.
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.