ArticleScientific reports2023
Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- All India Difficult Airway Association 2025 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult airway in paediatrics under general anaesthesia.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of laryngoscopes for successful intubation in difficult adult airways: A systematic review.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different intubation devices on intubation outcomes in pediatric intubation. We identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the first-pass success (FPS), and the secondary outcome included the time to intubation (TTI) and the risk of local complications (LC). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Twenty-three randomized comparative trials (RCTs) including 12 devices were included. Compared with Macintosh, Airtraq (odds ratio [OR] = 13.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.68 to 36.38), Miller (OR = 4.77, 95%CI = 1.32 to 17.22), Glidescope (OR = 2.76, 95%CrI = 1.60 to 4.75) and McGrath (OR = 4.61, 95%CI = 1.18 to 17.99) obtained higher PFS. Meanwhile, Airtraq was superior to Glidescope (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.07 to 0.65) for PFS. For TTI, Canada was superior to other intubation devices, as well as CMAC was superior to TruViewEVO2, Glidescope, and StorzDCI. Airtraq lowered the risk of LC compared with Macintosh and Pentax but there was no statistical difference between Airtraq and KingVision. Airtraq may be the optimal option for FPS, Canada for TTI, and KingVision for LC in pediatric intubation.
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.