ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Linscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscopes in Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 0 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Indirect laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for learning the techniques of airway management. The incorporation of small, less expensive, and yet more reliable video cameras in laryngoscopes has given the process of laryngoscopy and intubation a big leap. The King Vision video laryngoscope (Medline Industries, USA) has demonstrated promise in several settings while the Linscope video laryngoscope (Centrum, Turkey) is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of the Linscope video laryngoscope (VL) and King Vision video laryngoscope. Method This is a randomized controlled trial study. Seventy patients, after approval from the institute's ethical clearance, were divided into two groups. In Group A, patients were intubated with Linscope VL and in Group B patients were intubated with King Vision VL as per the protocol. The primary outcome measure was the duration of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were measured by the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and glottic view. Results Both Linscope VL and King Vision VL groups were comparable in terms of mean intubation time (20.34 s vs. 19.45 s). The endotracheal intubation with both devices was 100% successful at the first attempt. Both the devices provided a percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score of > 70% and a clear vision of the glottis. The POGO score obtained with King Vision VL was 83.57 ± 11.41% and with Linscope VL was 87.85 ± 10.31%. POGO score was greater with Linscope VL compared to King Vision VL, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05). Conclusion King Vision demonstrated shorter intubation time and fewer optimization maneuvers. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate on the first attempt. While both devices are viable first-line options, King Vision's well-established efficacy in the literature suggests its preference over Linscope till extensive evidence is available in the future.
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.