Video Laryngoscopes in Simulated Neonatal Intubation: Usability Study.

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.

1. 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 · 2026
   Observational

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as