Trial reportScientific reports2026
Hyper-angulated (Glidescope) versus intermediate-angled (UED-A) videolaryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in adults: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05721690 (UED-A Videolaryngoscope vs. Glidescope Titanium for Elective Tracheal Intubation), which is not on this 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.
UED-A Videolaryngoscope vs. Glidescope Titanium for Elective Tracheal Intubation: a Randomized Clinical Trial
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Videolaryngoscopy (VL) has become the gold standard for airway management. However, performance differences among blade geometries-especially between hyper-angulated and intermediate-angled designs-remain underexplored in routine airway management. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a hyper-angulated videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) and a novel intermediate-angled device (UED-A) during elective tracheal intubation of sixty adult patients. Patients were randomized to either device, with total intubation time as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, time to glottic visualization, number of attempts, external manipulation, Cormack-Lehane grade, adverse events, and user satisfaction. All patients were successfully intubated. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in total intubation time (UED-A: 30.9 ± 13.8 s vs. GlideScope: 29.5 ± 13.0 s; p = 0.73), time to glottic visualization (UED-A: 12.9 ± 4.7 s vs. GlideScope: 13.5 ± 5.4 s; p = 0.74), or first-pass success (UED-A: 93% vs. GlideScope: 97%; p > 0.99). Other secondary outcomes were also comparable between devices. In routine adult tracheal intubation, the intermediate-angled UED-A videolaryngoscope demonstrated a non-inferior performance to GlideScope, indicating that both devices offer similarly effective and user-friendly options for standard airway management. This suggests that intermediate-angled UED-A videolaryngoscope may serve as viable alternatives to hyper-angulated GlideScope in clinical practice. Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT05721690, Registration date: February 1, 2023.
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.