Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178953›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2017

Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jia Jiang, Danxu Ma, Bo Li, Yun Yue, Fushan Xue

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. A systematic review of meta-analyses comparing direct laryngoscopy with videolaryngoscopy.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Jia JiangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China.
Danxu MaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China.
Bo LiBeijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100010, China.
Yun YueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. yueyun@hotmail.com.
Fushan XueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China. xuefushan@aliyun.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is significant controversy regarding the influence of video laryngoscopy on the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscopy could improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients.

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception until 15 February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings were selected. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

resultsTwelve studies (2583 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show an improved first-attempt success rate using video laryngoscopy (relative risk [RR], 0.93; P = 0.28; low-quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I

conclusionsOn the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that, compared with direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy does not improve intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. Prehospital intubation is even worsened by use of video laryngoscopy when performed by experienced operators.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyVideo RecordingAirway managementLaryngoscopeRandomized controlled trialTracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID29178953
PMCPMC5702235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.