ArticleBMJ open2025
Hyperangulated videolaryngoscope for difficult airway management: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVideolaryngoscopes are recommended as the top preference for tracheal intubation in adults, children, infants and neonates, and even in patients with anticipated difficult airways, since they are generally easier to use and quicker to master than fibreoptic bronchoscopes. Compared with standard videolaryngoscopes, hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes possess a more sharply curved blade or blade tip, resulting in a higher first-attempt success rate among patients with anticipated difficult airways. However, hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes also pose challenges in advancing the tracheal tube, which decreases the first-attempt success rate while increasing the tracheal intubation time when the tracheal tube introducer is unsuitable. Hence, controversy still remains regarding the efficiency of hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes as first-line devices in patients with anticipated difficult airways, owing to the inconsistent clinical findings. Consequently, we will conduct a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the usefulness of hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes in patients with anticipated difficult airways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: English-language databases (Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Ovid Medline), Chinese electronic databases (VIP database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database) and clinical trial registry platforms will be scoured from their inception to May 2025 to locate randomised controlled trials of hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes in patients with anticipated difficult airways. For continuous data, mean differences or standardised mean differences, accompanied by their 95% CIs, and for dichotomous data, the risk ratio, accompanied by its 95% CI, will be calculated using Review Manager V.5.4. Either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model will be used depending on the magnitude of statistical heterogeneity as evaluated via the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024627484.
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.