SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2025
Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for teaching direct laryngoscopy skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- International Consensus on Airway Management Procedures for Distance Simulation: A Delphi Study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Reality matters: in-field validation of fresh frozen cadaver-based airway training in HEMS - the BOAH Initiative: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Article
- Ten tips for a safe approach in airway management.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- High-fidelity simulation in airway management training: results from the AIR-MASTER-SIM randomised study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Human Factors in Airway Management: Designing Systems for Safer, Team-Based Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The evolving landscape of airway education in anesthesia for head and neck surgery.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025Review
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
backgroundIt is established that videolaryngoscopy improves intubation success rates and views compared with direct laryngoscopy. However, concerns regarding default adoption of videolaryngoscopy include a negative impact on skill acquisition for direct laryngoscopy. This study aimed to assess the utility of Macintosh videolaryngoscopy for teaching direct laryngoscopy.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for relevant randomised controlled trials, crossover, and observational studies. Two authors screened abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion before extracting and cross-checking data. Critical outcomes included first-attempt success, overall success, and time to intubation, with trainee confidence and ease of guidance assessed as secondary outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool.
resultsWe identified 21 relevant studies, 10 of which assessed Macintosh videolaryngoscopy for teaching direct laryngoscopy. For first-attempt success, videolaryngoscopy outperformed direct laryngoscopy with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.16 ([95% confidence interval 1.07-1.25]; five studies; I
conclusionsVideolaryngoscopy appears to be an effective tool for teaching direct laryngoscopy. Its role as a preferred teaching tool should be considered. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023493366).
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.