ArticleHeliyon2023
Is older still good, or even better? Evaluation of possibility of using Miller laryngoscope for intubation in adults and comparison with the most widely used Macintosh laryngoscope. Protocol of a crossover randomized control trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Macintosh laryngoscope is the most widely used laryngoscope for intubation. In some patients, e.g. with flaccid, drooping, aplastic epiglottis, usage of this laryngoscope, or even videolaryngoscopes, may not provide visualization of a glottis. Elevation of the laryngopharynx, like in intubation with Miller laryngoscope, may significantly improve intubating conditions. Methods: An anaesthesiologist with over 20 years of experience will perform direct laryngoscopy with randomly chosen Miller or Macintosh blade, evaluating the visibility of rima glottidis with Cormack-Lehane classification and POGO score with and without external laryngeal pressure. Then the second evaluation of glottis with other blade type will be obtained and the patient will be intubated. Comparison of the rima glottidis visibility when using both blades will be the primary endpoint of the study. The secondary endpoints consist of: demonstrating whether there is a group of adult patients in whom the use of the Miller blade associated with better vocal cord visibility may be predicted based on an anesthesiological examination, and whether external laryngeal pressure improves vocal cord visualization more when using the Miller blade compared with the Macintosh blade. Sample size: We performed minimal sample size calculations based on the data derived from the first 60 patients. We assessed the minimal sample size to obtain the alpha of 5 % and power of 90 %. We decide to enroll at least 286 patients. Discussion: this will be the first trial assessing Miller and Macintosh blades in the same population of adult patients. It will determine group of patients in whom Miller laryngoscope will provide better visualization of rima glottidis than Macintosh blade and associated technique, diminishing rate of prolonging intubations and reducing possible aftermaths of hypoxia.
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.