ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- All India Difficult Airway Association 2025 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult airway in paediatrics under general anaesthesia.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Managing a Complex Pediatric Airway Affected by Venolymphatic Malformation of the Face: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Nasotracheal intubation in pediatrics: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients with a Difficult Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research aimed to produce a coherent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients using network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the electric databases for prospective randomized studies that compared different tracheal intubation devices in pediatric patients. The primary outcome was intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were glottic visualization and intubation time. The statistical analysis performed used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and network plots and network league tables were produced. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding rigid-fiberscope-type indirect laryngoscopes. Thirty-four trials comparing 13 devices were included. Most laryngoscopes had the same intubation failure rate as the Macintosh reference device. Only the Truview PCD™ had a significantly higher intubation failure rate than the Macintosh (odds ratio 4.78, 95% confidence interval 1.11-20.6) The highest-ranking laryngoscope was the Airtaq™ (P score, 0.90), and the AirwayScope™, McGrath™, and Truview EVO2™ ranked higher than the Macintosh. The Bullard™ had the lowest ranking (P score, 0.08). All laryngoscopes had the same level of glottic visualization as the Macintosh and only the C-MAC™ had a significantly shorter intubation time. Intubation time was significantly longer when using the GlideScope™, Storz DCI™, Truview PCD™, or Bullard™ compared with the Macintosh. P score and ranking of devices in the subgroup analyses were similar to those in the main analysis. We applied NMA to create a consistent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients. The findings of NMA suggest that there is presently no laryngoscope superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of tracheal intubation failure rate and glottic visualization in pediatric patients.
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.