Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27752593›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2015

Effects of an elevated position on time to tracheal intubation by novice intubators using Macintosh laryngoscopy or videolaryngoscopy: randomized crossover trial.

Abraham K C Wai, Colin A Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Abraham K C WaiAccident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Colin A GrahamAccident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the time to tracheal intubation using Glidescope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) compared to that of standard laryngoscopy, by using a Macintosh blade (SLM) in a human patient simulator in supine and elevated (ramped) positions.

methodsIn this randomized crossover design, novice intubators (first-year medical students), using both laryngoscopic techniques, attempted tracheal intubation on a human patient simulator with a "normal airway" anatomy (Cormack-Lehane grade I). The simulator was placed in both supine and ramped positions using a commercial mattress system. The mean time to intubation and complications were compared between GVL and SLM in both positions. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO, GVL only) was estimated during intubation in the ramped and supine positions. The primary outcome was time to intubation, and the secondary outcomes included complication rates such as esophageal intubation and dental trauma.

resultsThere was no difference in the mean time to intubation in either position (P=0.33). The SLM intubation was significantly faster than GVL (mean difference, 1.5 minutes; P<0.001). The mean POGO score for GVL improved by 8% in the ramped position compared to that in supine position (P=0.018). The esophageal intubation rate for SLM was 15% to 17% compared to 1.3% for GVL; dental trauma occurred in 53% to 56% of GVL, compared to 2% to 6% for SLM (P<0.001, respectively).

conclusionNovices had shorter intubation times using standard laryngoscopy with a SLM compared to GVL in both supine and ramped positions. GVL resulted in fewer esophageal intubations, but more dental trauma than standard laryngoscopy.

Indexed as

IntubationLaryngoscopyRamped positionSupine positionTracheal

Identifiers

PMID27752593
PMCPMC5052847

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.