SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2020
ETView VivaSight single lumen vs. conventional intubation in simulated studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development of endotracheal intubation devices for patients with tumors.American journal of cancer research · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe ETView VivaSight single lumen airway tube (ETView) is a tracheal tube incorporating a video camera. We carried out a meta-analysis of previous simulation studies by inexperienced personnel to determine if the ETView could improve the success rate of first-attempt intubation.
methodsWe collected data from randomized controlled trials comparing the use of the ETView VivaSight single lumen versus a conventional endotracheal tube in a simulated manikin or cadaver study.
resultsEleven studies (558 participants, 3,254 intubations, and 19 scenarios) were included. The ETView had a significantly higher success rate and shorter insertion time than conventional intubation in both normal airways (with or without chest compression) and in difficult airways. In addition, the ETView demonstrated better results in terms of a higher rate of Cormack-Lehane grade 1 and a lower incidence of dental trauma.
conclusionsInexperienced personnel can insert the ETView more rapidly and with a higher intubation success rate compared with a conventional tube.
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.