ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2019
Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 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
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aim to investigate intubation conditions, intubation times, and hemodynamic response with the GlideScope video laryngoscope or the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children older than one year.
methodsEighty patients aged 1-12 years, scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included in a prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. Exclusion criteria were risk of pulmonary aspiration, craniofacial malformation, difficult intubation, emergency surgery, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and hemodynamic instability. After standard anesthesia induction, patients were randomized into two groups. The group G patients (n=40) were intubated with the GlideScope and the group M patients (n=40) were intubated with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Intubation time, number of attempts, Cormack-Lehane score, airway maneuvers, and visual analog score were recorded. Hemodynamic variables were recorded before and after anesthesia induction, at intubation, and 1., 3., and 5. minutes after intubation. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the χ
resultsThe demographic data, operation time and hemodynamic parameters were similar between the two groups. The intubation time was longer in Group G than Group M. The incidence of Cormack-Lehane score 1 was higher in Group G than Group M while Cormack-Lehane score 2 was higher in Group M.
conclusionWe concluded that the GlideScope video laryngoscope provided better glottis visualization, but prolonged intubation time. There was no superiorty on hemodynamic effect with the video laryngoscope.
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.