Trial reportPloS one2020
Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of the Bebé VieScope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Simulation Platforms to Train and Assess Pediatric Acute Care Procedural Skills: A Scoping Review.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Article
- A test prototype of a novel flexible video laryngoscope and preliminary verification in a difficult airway management simulator.Biomedical engineering online · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManaging difficult pediatric airway is challenging. The MultiViewScope (MVS) Stylet Scope is reported to be useful in difficult pediatric airway. In this randomized crossover study, we compared the effectiveness of the MVS Stylet Scope to a standard direct laryngoscope with Miller #1 blade in simulated normal and difficult airways.
methodsFifteen expert anesthesiologists and Fifteen anesthesiology residents participated in the study. Participants were asked to perform intubation with the Airsim Baby manikin first, and then with the Airsim Pierre Robin manikin. Participants in each group used the intubation devices in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the time of successful intubation. The secondary outcomes were the force exerted on the incisors during intubation, Cormack-Lehane scale, the difficulty of intubation.
resultsThere were no differences between MVS Stylet Scope and Direct laryngoscope in the time of successful intubation by the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved the force exerted on the incisors during intubation in the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved Cormack-Lehane scale, and the difficulty of intubation with difficult pediatric airway situation in both expert anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents.
conclusionsAlthough less forces on the incisors and improved view of glottis were observed with the MVS Stylet Scope, MVS Stylet Scope did not shorten the time of intubation. The results of this study mean that the MVS Stylet Scope may be a less invasive airway devise than the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade in the pediatric airway management. For the next step, we need to evaluate the MVS Stylet Scope in the real patients as an observational study.
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.