Trial reportAnesthesia progress2020
Comparing Video and Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation.
Trial report in Anesthesia progress, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining the Clinical Pathway for Nasotracheal Intubation: An Updated Decision Making Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Comparison of McCoy, Macintosh, and Truview laryngoscope for bougie-aided naso-tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled study.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This parallel group randomized controlled clinical trial compared intubation duration and success using video laryngoscopy (VL) versus direct laryngoscopy (DL) during routine nasotracheal intubation. Fifty patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned into 2 groups receiving either VL or DL to facilitate nasotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was the amount of time required to complete nasotracheal intubation. The secondary outcomes included the success of first attempt at intubation and the use of Magill forceps. Results demonstrated a mean time to intubation of 142 seconds in the DL group and 94 seconds in the VL group (p = .011). First attempt intubation success was 92.0% in the VL group and 84.0% in the DL group (p = .34). The use of Magill forceps was significantly increased in the DL group (p = .007). VL for routine nasotracheal intubation in oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures results in significantly faster intubation times and decreased use of Magill forceps compared with traditional DL.
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.