ArticleAEM education and training2025
Comparison of direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation with and without bougie assistance in novice learners: A simulation-based study.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation with and without bougie assistance in novice learners: A simulation-based study.AEM education and training · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endotracheal (ET) intubation is a common emergency procedure generally done with direct laryngoscopy (DL). Digital intubation (DI), which uses blind finger guidance to manipulate the ET tube, is rarely used but is useful if secretions block the view or a laryngoscope is not available. DI can also be done bougie-assisted. This study aimed to compare three different approaches to intubation in simulation. Methods: Medical students without prior airway training were invited to participate in this simulation study on an airway manikin. Participants viewed brief instructional videos on three different methods-DL, DI, and bougie-assisted DI-and performed three attempts with each method in a randomized order. Data were collected for the rate of successful intubations, the timing to intubation, and dental trauma. Results: Fifty-one medical students performed 459 attempts at intubation on a manikin. On the third attempt, the trachea was successfully intubated in 65% of the attempts using DL, 53% with DI, and 90% with bougie-assisted DI. At the last attempt, the time to intubation was 35 (±16) s for DL, 28 (±10) s with DI, and 44 (±30) s with bougie-guided DI. Dental trauma was less frequent with DI. Conclusion: Ninety percent of medical students successfully intubated a manikin on the third attempt when using a bougie to guide DI. A bougie-guided DI could be more likely to result in successful ET intubation than DL for those without sufficient training.
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.