SynthesisEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2025
Video laryngoscopy may improve the intubation outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reality matters: in-field validation of fresh frozen cadaver-based airway training in HEMS - the BOAH Initiative: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Perioperative predictors of critical care admission following emergency surgical procedures: a comprehensive evaluation of anesthesia management.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Airway management analysis in the rescue environment of the emergency service Zug: a retrospective real-world evaluation.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in a UK pre-hospital physician/critical care paramedic helicopter emergency medical service.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of video laryngoscopy in critically ill patients requiring emergency tracheal intubation remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether video laryngoscopy could improve the clinical outcomes of emergency tracheal intubation.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases up to 5 September 2024. Randomised controlled trials comparing video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for emergency tracheal intubation were analysed. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate, while secondary outcomes included intubation time, glottic visualisation, in-hospital mortality and complications.
resultsTwenty-six studies (6 in prehospital settings and 20 in hospital settings) involving 5952 patients were analysed in this study. Fifteen studies had low risk of bias. Overall, there was no significant difference in first-attempt success rate between two groups (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13, p=0.24, I
conclusionsIn hospital settings, video laryngoscopy improved first-attempt success rate of emergency intubation, provided superior glottic visualisation and reduced incidence of oesophageal intubation in critically ill patients. Our findings support the routine use of video laryngoscopy in the emergency department and intensive care units. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42023461887.
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.