Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37685417›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.

Vikram Nedunchezhian, Ishvar Nedunchezhian, André Van Zundert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intubation during Uninterrupted Chest Compressions: How Easy?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Comparing devices for managing the difficult airway.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vikram NedunchezhianDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia.
Ishvar NedunchezhianSchool of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4215, Australia.
André Van ZundertDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1836-6831
Griffith University · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Videolaryngoscopes (VLs) have emerged as a safety net offering several advantages over direct laryngoscopy (DL). The aim of this study is to expand on our previous study conducted in 2016, to deduce which VL is most preferred by clinicians and to highlight any changes that may have occurred over the past 7 years. An extensive systematic literature review was performed on Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Studies for articles published between September 2016 and January 2023. This review highlighted similar results to our study in 2016, with the CMAC being the most preferred for non-channelled laryngoscopes, closely followed by the GlideScope. For channelled videolaryngoscopes, the Pentax AWS was the most clinically preferred. This review also highlighted that there are minimal studies that compare the most-used VLs, and thus we suggest that future studies directly compare the most-used and -preferred VLs as well as the specific nature of blades to attain more useful results.

Indexed as

airway managementcritical caredifficult airwayintubationlaryngoscopevideolaryngoscope

Identifiers

PMID37685417
PMCPMC10487223
OpenAlexW4386142381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.