Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023
Conventional versus video-assisted laryngoscopy for perioperative endotracheal intubation (COVALENT) - a randomized, controlled multicenter trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05228288 (Conventional vs. Video-Assisted Laryngoscopy for Perioperative Endotracheal Intubation), which is not on this 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.
Conventional vs. Video-Assisted Laryngoscopy for Perioperative Endotracheal Intubation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional vs Video-Assisted Laryngoscopy for Perioperative Endotracheal Intubations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Bilateral Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block to Attenuate the Pressor Response of Laryngoscopy and Intubation in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgeries Under General Endotracheal Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Double-blind Study.Annals of African medicine · 2026Trial
- Comparison between the standard method and the 30° curved tongue depressor-aided technique for insertion of a laryngeal mask airway: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the routine use of video-assisted laryngoscopy in peri-operative intubations are rather inconsistent and ambiguous, in part due to small populations and non-uniform outcome measures in past trials. Failed or prolonged intubation procedures are a reason for relevant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine whether video-assisted laryngoscopy (with both Macintosh-shaped and hyperangulated blades) is at least equal to the standard method of direct laryngoscopy with respect to the first-pass success rate. Furthermore, validated tools from the field of human factors will be applied to examine within-team communication and task load during this critical medical procedure.
methodsIn this randomized, controlled, three-armed parallel group design, multi-centre trial, a total of more than 2500 adult patients scheduled for perioperative endotracheal intubation will be randomized. In equally large arms, video-assisted laryngoscopy with a Macintosh-shaped or a hyperangulated blade will be compared to the standard of care (direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade). In a pre-defined hierarchical analysis, we will test the primary outcome for non-inferiority first. If this goal should be met, the design and projected statistical power also allow for subsequent testing for superiority of one of the interventions. Various secondary outcomes will account for patient safety considerations as well as human factors interactions within the provider team and will allow for further exploratory data analysis and hypothesis generation. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial will provide a solid base of data in a field where reliable evidence is of major clinical importance. With thousands of endotracheal intubations performed every day in operating rooms around the world, every bit of performance improvement translates into increased patient safety and comfort and may eventually prevent significant burden of disease. Therefore, we feel confident that a large trial has the potential to considerably benefit patients and anaesthetists alike.
trial registrationClincalTrials.gov NCT05228288. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.1, November 15, 2021.
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.