SynthesisPloS one2024
Comparison of outcomes between video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical neck immobilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPEBMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Flexible bronchoscopy in young infants with hCoV-NL63-associated necrotizing laryngotracheobronchitis: findings and interventional value.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The Value of Tracheal Visualization in Tracheostomized Patients in Skilled and Long-Term Care Homes.Cureus · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComparing the outcomes of video-laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization.
methodsAll of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 8 Jan 2024 were included. All outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. The primary outcomes were the successful first-attempt intubation rate, intubation time, heart rate after intubation, mean arterial pressure after intubation, overall intubation success rate, risk of tissue damage and sore throat.
resultsThe meta-analysis included six randomized controlled studies with a total of 694 patients. The outcomes of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of video laryngoscopy was better than flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy in terms of the successful first-attempt intubation rate (P<0.05) and intubation time (P<0.05) in patients with cervical spine immobilization. However, there were no statistically significant differences in heart rate after intubation, mean arterial pressure after intubation, overall intubation success rate, risk of tissue damage, or sore throat (all P>0.05) between the video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy groups.
conclusionsCompared with flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy, video laryngoscopy has superior tracheal intubation performance in terms of the first-attempt success rate and intubation speed. This finding was observed in patients with cervical spine immobilization who utilized a cervical collar to simulate a difficult airway. Additionally, both types of scopes demonstrated similar complication rates. Current evidence suggests that video laryngoscopy is better suited than flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in patients immobilized with a cervical collar.
trial registrationSystematic review protocol: CRD42024499868.
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.