SynthesisPloS one
Performance of custom made videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of AirAngel® vs. Storz® videolaryngoscope and Macintosh® laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation training: prospective randomized crossover study.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Advancements in additive manufacturing for video laryngoscopes: a comprehensive scoping and technological review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- New Devices, Innovative Technologies, and Non-Standard Techniques for Airway Management: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVideolaryngoscope is regarded as the standard of care for airway management in well-resourced setups however the technology is largely inaccessible and costly in middle and low-income countries. An improvised and cost-effective form of customized videolaryngoscope was proposed and studied for patient care in underprivileged areas however there were no distinct conclusions on its performances.
methodThe study follows PRISMA guidelines for systematic review and the protocol in International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews. The primary aim was to assess the first attempt success of customized videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation. The secondary objective was to evaluate the number of attempts, laryngoscopic view in terms of Cormack Lehane score and Percentage of glottic opening, use of external laryngeal maneuver and stylet and, the airway injuries after the endotracheal intubation.
resultFive studies were analyzed for risk of bias using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for cross-sectional studies. Most of the studies had a poor to a fair level of evidence with only one study with a good level of evidence. Certainty of evidence was "very low" for all eligible studies when graded using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for systematic review.
conclusionsThe certainty of the evidence regarding performance of custom-made videolaryngoscope compared to conventional laryngoscope was very low and the study was performed in small numbers with fair to the poor risk of bias. It was difficult to establish and do further analysis regarding whether the customized form of videolaryngoscope will improve the first attempt success rate for tracheal intubation, reduce the number of attempts, improve the laryngoscopic view, require fewer external aids and reduce the incidences of airway injury with the given low-grade evidence. Some properly conducted randomised clinical trials will be required to further analyze the outcome and make the strong recommendations.
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.