Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30947694›Full record

SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2019

Outcomes in video laryngoscopy studies from 2007 to 2017: systematic review and analysis of primary and secondary endpoints for a core set of outcomes in video laryngoscopy research.

Jochen Hinkelbein, Ivan Iovino, Edoardo De Robertis, Peter Kranke

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Jochen HinkelbeinDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Germany. Jochen.hinkelbein@uk-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3585-9459
Ivan IovinoDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Germany.
Edoardo De RobertisDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Peter KrankeDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAirway management is crucial and, probably, even the most important key competence in anaesthesiology, which directly influences patient safety and outcome. However, high-quality research is rarely published and studies usually have different primary or secondary endpoints which impedes clear unbiased comparisons between studies. The aim of the present study was to gather and analyse primary and secondary endpoints in video laryngoscopy studies being published over the last ten years and to create a core set of uniform or homogeneous outcomes (COS).

methodsRetrospective analysis. Data were identified by using MEDLINE® database and the terms "video laryngoscopy" and "video laryngoscope" limited to the years 2007 to 2017. A total of 3351 studies were identified by the applied search strategy in PubMed. Papers were screened by two anaesthesiologists independently to identify study endpoints. The DELPHI method was used for consensus finding.

resultsIn the 372 studies analysed and included, 49 different outcome categories/columns were reported. The items "time to intubation" (65.86%), "laryngeal view grade" (44.89%), "successful intubation rate" (36.56%), "number of intubation attempts" (23.39%), "complications" (21.24%), and "successful first-pass intubation rate" (19.09%) were reported most frequently. A total of 19 specific parameters is recommended.

conclusionsIn recent video laryngoscopy studies, many different and inhomogeneous parameters were used as outcome descriptors/endpoints. Based on these findings, we recommend that 19 specific parameters (e.g., "time to intubation" (inserting the laryngoscope to first ventilation), "laryngeal view grade" (C&L and POGO), "successful intubation rate", etc.) should be used in coming research to facilitate future comparisons of video laryngoscopy studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationHumansLaryngoscopesLaryngoscopyTreatment OutcomeVideo-Assisted SurgeryAirway managementPrimary endpointPrimary outcomeVideo laryngoscopy

Identifiers

PMID30947694
PMCPMC6449905

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.