SynthesisResuscitation2026
Tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy as compared to direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Resuscitation, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceAdvanced airway management is a critical component of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The use of video laryngoscopy has become increasingly common, but their effect on intubation success and patient outcomes during cardiac arrest remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review commissioned by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support Task Force. Following PRISMA and ILCOR methodology, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through October 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies comparing tracheal intubation with video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during cardiac arrest. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Critical outcomes included first pass tracheal intubation success, overall tracheal intubation success, return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and survival with good neurologic outcome.
resultsFrom 13,031 screened records, 16 studies (3 RCTs, 13 observational) were included. Across three RCTs enrolling 331 patients, very low-certainty evidence showed no difference between video and direct laryngoscopy for first-pass tracheal intubation success (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63-1.22) or overall intubation success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.12). Observational studies (n = 29,595) generally favored video laryngoscopy for both outcomes. Very low-certainty data from observational studies showed no consistent difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or survival. Rates of esophageal intubation were lower with video laryngoscopy in all studies reporting this outcome (RCT: 4.3% vs 0%; observational data: 5.6% vs 1.4%).
conclusionsAmong adults undergoing tracheal intubation during cardiac arrest, use of video laryngoscopes may improve process outcomes such as first-pass success and reduced esophageal intubation, but there is no evidence of improved ROSC or patient survival. The overall certainty of evidence is very low.
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.