ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Neonatal intubation: what are we doing?
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The C-MAC video laryngoscope helps presbyopic anesthetists to overcome difficulty in neonatal and infantile intubation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Retrospective Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Video Laryngoscope System for Tracheal Intubation in Infants and Neonates.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How and when the forces are applied during neonatal intubation are currently unknown. This study investigated the pattern of the applied forces by using sensorized laryngoscopes during the intubation process in a neonatal manikin. Nine users of direct laryngoscope and nine users of straight-blade video laryngoscope were included in a neonatal manikin study. During each procedure, relevant forces were measured using a force epiglottis sensor that was placed on the distal surface of the blade. The pattern of the applied forces could be divided into three sections. With the direct laryngoscope, the first section showed either a quick rise of the force or a discontinuous rise with several peaks; after reaching the maximum force, there was a sort of plateau followed by a quick drop of the applied forces. With the video laryngoscope, the first section showed a quick rise of the force; after reaching the maximum force, there was an irregular and heterogeneous plateau, followed by heterogeneous decreases of the applied forces. Moreover, less forces were recorded when using the video laryngoscope. Conclusions: This neonatal manikin study identified three sections in the diagram of the forces applied during intubation, which likely mirrored the three main phases of intubation. Overall, the pattern of each section showed some differences in relation to the laryngoscope (direct or video) that was used during the procedure. These findings may provide useful insights for improving the understanding of the procedure. What is Known: • Neonatal intubation is a life-saving procedure that requires a skilled operator and may cause direct trauma to the tissues and precipitate adverse reactions. • Intubation with a videolaryngoscope requires less force than with a direct laryngoscope, but how and when the forces are applied during the whole neonatal intubation procedure are currently unknown. What is New: • Forces applied to the epiglottis during intubation can be divided into three sections: (i) an initial increase, (ii) a sort of plateau, and (iii) a decrease. • The pattern of each section shows some differences in relation to the laryngoscope (direct or videolaryngoscope) that is used during the procedure.
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.