ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Comparisons of Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation success in critically ill patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Hyper-angulated (Glidescope) versus intermediate-angled (UED-A) videolaryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in adults: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Comparative evaluation of King Vision videolaryngoscope channeled and non-channeled blades with direct laryngoscope for intubation performance and skill retention by medical students: a randomized cross over two period study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2023Trial
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of the C-MAC Versus the McGrath Videolaryngoscope for Adult Endotracheal Intubation in Clinical Patients, Simulated Patients, and Manikin Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Ramped versus sniffing position for videolaryngoscopy-guided tracheal intubation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- All India Difficult Airway Association 2025 Guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult airway in adults under general anaesthesia.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Hemodynamic Responses and Oropharyngeal Complications in Tracheal Intubation: Evaluating Conventional, Video, and Rigid Video Laryngoscopes Under General Anesthesia.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparative effectiveness of laryngoscopes for successful intubation in difficult adult airways: A systematic review.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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopes (VLs) for tracheal intubation is still conflicting and changeable according to airway circumstances. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of several VLs in patients undergoing general anesthesia.
methodsMedline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until 13 January 2020. The following VLs were evaluated compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) by network meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-MAC, C-MAC D-blade (CMD), GlideScope, King Vision, and McGrath. Outcome measures were the success and time (speed) of intubation, glottic view, and sore throat (safety).
resultsA total of 9315 patients in 96 RCTs were included. The highest-ranked VLs for first-pass intubation success were CMD (90.6 % in all airway; 92.7% in difficult airway) and King Vision (92% in normal airway). In the rank analysis for secondary outcomes, the following VLs showed the highest efficacy or safety: Airtraq (safety), Airwayscope (speed and view), C-MAC (speed), CMD (safety), and McGrath (view). These VLs, except McGrath, were more effective or safer than MCL in moderate evidence level, whereas there was low certainty of evidence in the intercomparisons of VLs.
conclusionsCMD and King Vision could be relatively successful than MCL and other VLs for tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. The comparisons of intubation success between VLs and MCL showed moderate certainty of evidence level, whereas the intercomparisons of VLs showed low certainty evidence.
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.