SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for critically Ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation: a trial sequential analysis and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough Video laryngoscope (VL) can reduce the difficulty of endotracheal intubation and improve the glottic view, its use in critically ill patients is controversial.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VL and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for critically ill patients were searched on electronic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase. Additional publications were identified by screening the reference lists of the identified articles and relevant previously published reviews.
resultsOverall, 25 RCTs involving 5836 critically ill patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the first intubation rate between the VL and DL groups (25 studies; RR, 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.11; n = 5836; p = 0.37; very low certainty). However, Multivariate meta-regression analysis identified two main sources of bias: whether intubation was performed in a hospital (p = 0.04) and operator proficiency with DL compared to VL (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that VL improved the first intubation rate in in-hospital intubation (19 studies; RR, 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.22; n = 4441; p < 0.01, very low certainty) and VL showed good potential to reduce the first-attempt intubation success rates, but not significantly (6 studies; RR, 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-1.00; n = 1395; p = 0.05, very low certainty). In subgroups with similar operator proficiency VL and DL, VL increased the success rate for first intubation (16 studies; RR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; n = 3,971; p < 0.01; very low certainty). However, VL decreased the first intubation rate (4 studies; RR, 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.88; n = 810; p < 0.01; very low certainty) in a subgroup where operator proficiency was higher for DL than for VL.
conclusionVL does not increase the first intubation rate. However, VL increases the first-attempt intubation success rate for in-hospital intubation and operators with similar proficiency in VL and DL.
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.