ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2016
Intubation of a Paediatric Manikin in Tongue Oedema and Face-to-Face Simulations by Novice Personnel: a Comparison of Glidescope, Airtraq and Direct Laryngoscopy.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of Airtraq™ and GlideScope® videolaryngoscopes for difficult pediatric intubation in a Pierre Robin manikin.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Trial
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGlidescope and Airtraq were designed for facilitating intubation and for teaching regarding the airway anatomy. We aimed to evaluate their efficacy in normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face orotracheal intubation models when used by novice personnel.
methodsAfter the local human research ethics committee approval, 36 medical students who were in the beginning of their third year were enrolled in this study. After watching a video regarding intubation using one of these devices, the students intubated a paediatric manikin with a Glidescope or Airtraq via the normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face approach.
resultsAlthough the insertion and intubation times were similar among the groups, the intubation success rate of the Glidescope was higher in the normal airway (100% vs 67%) and tongue oedema (89% vs. 50%) compared with the Airtraq (p=0.008 and p=0.009). The success rates with the paediatric manikin by the face-to-face approach were similar among the groups (50%) (p=0.7). The need for manoeuvres in the Glidescope was lower in the normal and tongue oedema models (p=0.02 and p=0.002). In addition, oesophageal intubation was low in the control and tongue oedema models with the Glidescope (p=0.03 and p<0.001).
conclusionNovice personnel could more easily intubate the trachea with the Glidescope than with the Airtraq. Intubation with the Glidescope was superior to that with the Airtraq in the normal and tongue oedema models. The face-to-face intubation success rates were both low with both the Glidescope and Airtraq groups.
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.