Observational studyBMJ open2019
Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Intubation characteristics using modified USB videolaryngoscope: A prospective, randomised study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- A noninferiority trial comparing left paratracheal pressure versus cricoid pressure on tracheal intubation conditions using the Pentax Airway Scope.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Video screen visualization patterns when using a video laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Review
- Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of Rocuronium with Succinylcholine for Rapid Sequence Induction Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center in China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial.Emergency medicine international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVideo laryngoscopes are used for managing difficult airways. This study compared three video laryngoscopes' (Pentax-Airway Scope [Pentax], King Vision[King] and McGrath MAC [McGrath]) performances with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) as emergency tracheal intubations (TIs) reference.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingThe emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit (ICU) of two Japanese tertiary-level hospitals.
participantsAll consecutive video-recorded emergency TI cases in EDs and ICUs between December 2013 and June 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study endpoint was first-pass intubation success. A subgroup analysis examined the first-pass intubation success of expert versus non-expert operators. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of first-pass intubation success.
resultsA total of 287 emergency TIs were included. The first-pass intubation success rates were 78%, 58%, 78% and 58% for the Pentax, King, McGrath and Macintosh instruments, respectively (p=0.004, Fisher's exact test). The non-expert operators' success rates were significantly higher (p=0.00004, Fisher's exact test) for the Pentax (87%) and McGrath (78%) instruments than that for the King (50%) and Macintosh (46%) instruments, unlike that of the experts (67%, 67%, 78% and 78% for Pentax, McGrath, King and Macintosh, respectively; p=0.556, Fisher's exact test). After TI indication, difficult airway characteristics, and expert versus non-expert operator parameters adjustments, the Pentax (OR=3.422, 95% CI 1.551 to 7.550; p=0.002) and McGrath (OR= 3.758, CI 1.640 to 8.612; p=0.002) instruments showed significantly higher first-pass intubation success odds when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (reference, OR=1). The King instrument, however, (OR=1.056; 95% CI 0.487 to 2.289, p=0.889) failed to show any significant superiority.
conclusionThe Pentax and McGrath laryngoscopes showed significantly higher emergency TI first-pass intubation success rates than the King laryngoscope when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, especially for non-expert operators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000027925; Results.
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.