Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30692885›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia

GlideScope

Eman Ramadan Salama, Doaa El Amrousy

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eman Ramadan SalamaDepartment of Anesthesia and Surgical ICU, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Doaa El AmrousyDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Tanta University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveAnesthesiologists encounter difficulties during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation of neonates with myelodysplasia. Tracheal intubation in lateral position in such cases deemed profitable but not easy because of the compromised laryngeal view. We compared GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) versus conventional Miller direct laryngoscope (DL) for tracheal intubation in laterally positioned neonates with myelodysplasia. MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty neonates scheduled for elective surgical repair of meningeocele or meningeomyelocele under general anesthesia were allocated randomly for endotracheal intubation using GVL or DL. Percentage of glottis opening (POGO) scores, time to best glottis view (TBGV), endotracheal tube passage time (TPT), intubation time (IT), intubation attempts, and overall success rate of intubation were recorded.

resultsTBGV was significantly shorter in GVL group (median = 6.8 s, range = 3.5-28.2 s) in comparison with DL group (median = 8.4 s, range = 4.8-32.7 s) (

conclusionIn laterally positioned neonates, GVL is easier than DL with a similar intubation time, comparable time required for tube passage, better views of the glottis, shorter times to obtain the best glottic view, and high success rate as compared with DL. GlideScope seems to be an effective approach for endotracheal intubation of laterally positioned neonates with myelodysplasia.

Indexed as

Cobalt video laryngoscopedirect laryngoscopeneonatestracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID30692885
PMCPMC6329240
OpenAlexW2914386365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.