ArticleCureus2023
Non-channeled Video Laryngoscopy as an Alternative to Conventional Laryngoscopy for Intubating Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 in the intensive care unit-A current assessment].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Review
- Article
- Endotracheal Intubation Outside the Operating Room: Year in Review 2023.Respiratory care · 2024Review
- A comparison of video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often a risky procedure due to the emergency situation, unstable condition of the patient, and technical problems such as inadequate positioning. Several new techniques, such as video laryngoscopy, have been developed recently to improve the success rate of first-pass intubations and reduce complications. We conducted this study to compare a non-channeled reusable video laryngoscope BPL VL-02 (manufactured by BPL Medical Technologies, Bangalore, India) with a conventional laryngoscope for intubation of adult patients in the ICU. Methodology A total of 72 ICU patients were randomly allocated to be intubated with either conventional direct laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade (group A) or video laryngoscopy with BPL VL-02 (group B). All patients were intubated by the primary investigator and the assistant noted the following parameters: the total number of intubation attempts, total duration of intubation, assistance or alternative technique required, Cormack Lehane grading, and any complications. Results There was no significant difference in the Cormack Lehane grading, number of attempts, or complications between the two groups. On comparing the assistance required during intubation in patients, it was observed that four (11.11%) patients in group A and seven (19.44%) patients in group B needed backward, upward, and rightward pressure on the larynx assistance during intubation. In five (13.89%) patients in group B, Stylet was required during intubation. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0308). The video laryngoscopy group (group B) had a longer mean duration of intubation (64.36 ± 6.28 seconds) compared to group A (45.72 ± 11.45 seconds), and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Non-channeled video laryngoscope (BPL VL-02) is not a suitable alternative to conventional direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade in terms of successful first-pass intubation, total duration of intubation, and assistance required.
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.