Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475031›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2025

Video vs. traditional laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation at birth or in the neonatal unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joe Fawke, Daniela T Costa-Nobre, Jasmine Antoine, Ruth Guinsburg, Maria Fernanda de Almeida, Georg M Schmölzer, Myra H Wyckoff, Gary M Weiner, Helen G Liley, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Singapore Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Joe FawkeUniversity Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Daniela T Costa-NobreDivision of Neonatal Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jasmine AntoineMater Mothers' Hospital, Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ruth GuinsburgDivision of Neonatal Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Fernanda de AlmeidaDivision of Neonatal Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Georg M SchmölzerCentre for the Studies of Asphyxia and Resuscitation and Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Myra H WyckoffPediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Gary M WeinerDepartment of Pediatrics, Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Helen G LileyMater Mothers' Hospital, Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

InfantIntubationLaryngoscopesLaryngoscopyNewbornResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID40475031
PMCPMC12140068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.