ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Comparison of the bébé VieScope™ and Direct Laryngoscope for Use While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Trial.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the intubation effectiveness of the bébé Vie Scope™ (VieScope) and direct laryngoscopy for emergency intubation in a pediatric manikin model performed by paramedics with and without personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures (PPE-AGP). Participants performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope and standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in two research scenarios: (1) without PPE-AGP, and (2) with PPE-AGP. Fifty-one paramedics without any previous experience with the VieScope participated in this study. In the PPE-AGP scenario, in the VieScope group, the percentage of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt was higher compared to the MAC group (94.1 vs. 78.4%, p = 0.031), intubation time was shorter (29.8 vs. 33.9 s, p < 0.001), and percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score was higher 91.0 vs 77.8 (p < 0.001). On the Cormack−Lehane scale, intubation with VieScope intubation was associated with higher scores rated at 1 (64.7 vs. 29.4%) than in the MAC group (p = 0.001). For intubation in the non-PPE scenario, there were no statistically significant differences between VieScope and MAC in relation to above parameters. Summarize, the bébé VieScope™ under PPE-AGP wearing conditions has proven to be a useful device for airway management in children providing better visualization of the larynx, better intubation conditions, and a higher success rate of tracheal intubation on the first attempt and reduced intubation time compared to the standard Macintosh 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.