SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation success in critically ill patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for critically Ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation: a trial sequential analysis and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Video laryngoscopy may improve the intubation outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPEBMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Beyond the default use of videolaryngoscopy: next steps?Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Article
- An ultrasound-based artificial intelligence framework for difficult airway prediction: A two-model, three-step decision framework.PloS one · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Predictions and Identifying Key Predictors for Safer Intubation: A Study on Video Laryngoscopy Views.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Endotracheal Intubation Outside the Operating Room: Year in Review 2023.Respiratory care · 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
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This review compares the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy (DL) for successful tracheal intubation in critically ill or emergency-care patients. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one or more video laryngoscopes to DL. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and network meta-analysis were used to investigate factors potentially influencing the efficacy of VL. The primary outcome was the success rate of first-attempt intubation. Results: This meta-analysis included 4244 patients from 22 RCTs. After sensitivity analysis, the pooled analysis revealed no significant difference in the success rate between VL and DL (VL vs. DL, 77.3% vs. 75.3%, respectively; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84-2.20; I Discussion: This pooled analysis found, with a low certainty of evidence, that VL does not improve intubation success relative to DL. Channeled VL had low efficacy in terms of intubation success compared with nonchanneled VL and DL. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=285702, identifier: CRD42021285702.
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.