ArticleTrends in anaesthesia & critical care2021
Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study.
Article in Trends in anaesthesia & critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Intubation during Uninterrupted Chest Compressions: How Easy?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Comparison between C-MAC and King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) for tracheal intubation in aerosol-prevention intubation box for COVID-19 patients: A manikin-based study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: A videolaryngoscope has been recommended for intubation in the COVID-19 scenario but the videolaryngoscope providing optimal intubation conditions is not ascertained. We compared KingVision channelled blade with a non-Channelled videolaryngoscope for intubation times in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by both anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologists. Methods: This prospective randomised cross over mannequin study was conducted in a skill training lab. 25 anaesthesiologists and 25 non-anaesthesiologists donned in standard personal protective equipment performed 100 intubations with KingVision and Tuoren videolaryngoscopes in a mannequin covered with a transparent plastic sheet. The total intubation time, percentage of glottic opening scores, first attempt success rates were assessed. Results: The mean difference in intubation times in anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist less with KingVision videolaryngoscope (21.1s; 95% CI 9.6-32.6s vs. 35.9s; 95% CI 24.4-47.4 s; P = 0.001). Percentage of glottic opening score was significantly better with KingVision by non-anaesthesiologists (60; IQR 42.5 to 75 vs. 70; IQR 50 to 100; P = 0.019). KingVision provided superior first attempt success rate in non-anaesthesiologists (84% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.02) and anaesthesiologists (96% vs. 76%; P = 0.12). Conclusion: KingVision channelled videolaryngoscope provided faster intubation times, glottic views and first attempt success rates in a simulated COVID-19 scenario in manikins and might be preferred over videolaryngoscopes with non-channelled blade. The findings need to be further verified in humans. Trial registration: ctri.nic.in identifier: REF/2020/05/033338.
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.