ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Airway Management during Massive Gastric Regurgitation Using VieScope or Macintosh Laryngoscope-A Randomized, Controlled Simulation Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of the Bebé VieScope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of the Possibility of Using the Laryngoscopes Macintosh, McCoy, Miller, Intubrite, VieScope and I-View for Intubation in Simulated Out-of-Hospital Conditions by People without Clinical Experience: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Comparison of the bébé VieScope™ and Direct Laryngoscope for Use While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this model of massive gastric aspiration, we compared two different laryngoscopes (VieScope and Macintosh) in a randomized, controlled simulation study. The primary endpoint was time to intubation; the secondary endpoints were intubation success (i.e., tracheal tube position) and amount of pulmonary aspiration. Thirty-four anesthetists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope and Macintosh laryngoscopy in a randomized order on an airway manikin simulating massive regurgitation of gastric fluid. The primary endpoint “time until intubation” could be achieved significantly faster (mean −12.4 s [95% confidence intervals (CI) −19.7 s; −7.3 s]) with Macintosh compared to VieScope (p < 0.001). Concerning “correct tube position”, no statistical difference was found between the devices (p = 1.0). The mean time to first ventilation was −11.1 s [95% CI −18.3 s; −5.3 s] when using Macintosh (p = 0.001). The mean volume of aspirated gastric fluid was lower in the Macintosh group: −90.0 mL [95% CI −235.0 mL; −27.5 mL] (p = 0.011). Data from this simulation study suggest that in a model of massive gastric regurgitation, airway management can be achieved faster and with less gastric aspiration when using a Macintosh laryngoscope compared to a VieScope laryngoscope.
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.