ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparative evaluation of Truview evo2 and Macintosh laryngoscope for ease of orotracheal intubation in children - A prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for paediatric tracheal intubation: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Hemodynamic Response to Tracheal Intubation Using Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTruview evo2 has been found to improve the glottic view when compared with the Miller blade in pediatric population. However, there is limited literature comparing it with Macintosh laryngoscope in children. We thus aimed to assess and compare Truview evo2 with the Macintosh laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children with regards to time to intubate, laryngoscopic view, ease of intubation, and associated hemodynamic changes. MATERIAL AND
methodsFifty ASA I-II children aged 2-8 years for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation participated in this prospective randomized-controlled study. They were randomly allocated to two groups. In group-M (
resultsCL grade 1 was found in a larger number of patients of group-T (
conclusionTruview evo2 provides better laryngeal view and has a lesser IDS, but takes longer for intubation, when compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope in children.
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.