ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Video vs. traditional laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation at birth or in the neonatal unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Singapore Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Comparison of functional features and user experience with different types of video laryngoscopes when used on neonatal manikins.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2026Observational
- Measuring the impact of introducing a new video laryngoscope on intubation success and safety among extremely low birthweight infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- 2025 American and European Guidelines on Neonatal Resuscitation: Concordance and Differences.Neonatology · 2026Review
- Video Laryngoscopes in Simulated Neonatal Intubation: Usability Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Videolaryngoscopy may increase neonatal intubation success when used by neonatologists and anesthesiologists. It is not known if this is true for intubations by neonatal clinicians only in neonatal units or on delivery suites. Objective: To critically appraise evidence on the success of tracheal intubation with video laryngoscopy compared to traditional laryngoscopy in infants at birth or in a neonatal unit. Data sources: Systematic review of studies identified by MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Clinical Trial Databases searched from inception to August 22, 2024, without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria: Studies that addressed the PICOST question: In infants receiving tracheal intubation at birth or on a neonatal unit (population), does video laryngoscopy (intervention), compared with traditional laryngoscopy (comparator), improve success (outcome)? Studies that included preoperative intubation or studies of video laryngoscopy use specifically for difficult airways were excluded. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 or ROBINS-I, meta-analysis using RevMan v. 5.4.1, and certainty of evidence using GRADEPro. Studied outcomes were successful tracheal intubation, successful intubation at first attempt, in-hospital mortality, adverse events attributed to laryngoscopy and perception of the intubating clinician. Results: Of 1261 records screened, six randomized controlled trials reporting 817 infants receiving 862 tracheal intubations were included. Success of intubation was higher overall with video laryngoscopy Conclusion: For infants in the delivery room or neonatal unit, use of video laryngoscopy improved overall and first attempt intubation success.
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.