ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
A comparative study of the efficacy of Glidescope versus Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for intubation in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for paediatric tracheal intubation: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Glidescope is a novel, portable, reusable video laryngoscope that has provided superior laryngeal visualization to facilitate tracheal intubation, especially in the management of difficult airways. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of the Glidescope (video-laryngoscope) against the Macintosh direct laryngoscope.
methodsFifty patients were randomly selected via simple randomization using computer-generated random numbers, and sorted into two groups of 25 patients: the Glidescope group and the Macintosh group. We included pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery for the repair of congenital heart disease. Those with suspected difficult intubation, preterm babies with low body weight, and patients at risk of aspiration were all excluded.
resultsPatients' baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were found to be comparable in the two groups. The mean intubation time was 24.1 ± 13.6 s in the Glidescope group, as compared to 18.1 ± 5.9 s in the Macintosh group. Blade insertion was easy in 92% and 96% of the patients in the Glidescope and Macintosh groups, respectively. Tracheal intubation was considered easy in 84% of the Glidescope group, compared to 92% of the Macintosh group. There was a statistically significant correlation between the ease of tracheal intubation and the used intubation method (rho = -0.35;
conclusionOur findings indicate that the Glidescope can be used as an efficient modality for obtaining successful intubations with no complications. Ease of tracheal intubation was the only outcome that was found to be affected by the used modality. Further investigations with proper sample sizes are needed.
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.