Trial reportBMC medical education2025
The role of video and direct laryngoscopy in medical student intubation training: a comparative study on success rates and learning curves.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Assessment of prehospital tracheal intubation technique using initial direct laryngoscopy during videolaryngoscopy: randomized controlled simulated trial.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Trial
- Two case reports of soft palate perforation as a complication of video laryngoscope-assisted tracheal intubation: mechanism analysis and preventative strategies.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Performance of the Bebé VieScope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- High-fidelity simulation in airway management training: results from the AIR-MASTER-SIM randomised study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect laryngoscopy (DL) is widely recognized as the most commonly used method for tracheal intubation. However, growing evidence highlights the increasingly prominent role of video laryngoscopy (VL) in the management of difficult airways. This study aimed to determine the most effective medical education method to equip medical students with this critical skill. In addition to evaluating the contributions of an intubation training program utilizing direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy to tracheal intubation success among inexperienced medical students, we also aimed to explore the potential benefits of combining these two techniques.
methodsThis mannequin-based study included 130 medical students. Before the study began, participants attended a 30-minute theoretical training session. Participants were randomly assigned to start with one of two scenarios. In each scenario, participants were given three attempts to perform intubation using each laryngoscope. The maximum allowable time for each intubation was set at 3 min. Students who successfully intubated within 3 min were recorded as successful, while those who failed to do so were recorded as unsuccessful.
resultsThe study demonstrated that VL provided higher success rates and shorter intubation times, particularly during the first and second attempts. However, it is noteworthy that no significant difference in success rates was observed between VL and DL during the third attempt.
conclusionThis study highlights the necessity of integrating both VL and DL methods in intubation training programs. The combination of both approaches allows students to achieve quick initial results while progressively developing proficiency for more complex scenarios over time. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.