ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy as a Training Tool for Pediatric Intubation Skills in Simulation Settings.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraining U.S. accredited medical school students in pediatric endotracheal intubation is currently underdeveloped, with significant room for improvement. While research has consistently demonstrated the advantages of video laryngoscopes (VL) over direct laryngoscopes (DL) in adults, there is limited data on the effectiveness of VL in training for pediatric simulation. Neonatal intubation presents a high rate of adverse events. Additionally, success rates for neonatal intubation are notably low among junior residents. The integration of simulated intubation training during U.S. medical students' first two years of training remains limited and poorly researched. STUDY QUESTION: This study evaluated and compared the effectiveness of VL versus DL as training tools for medical students performing intubation on pediatric patients. Which method better enhances intubation success rates and improves technical skills during the training process?
methodsNinety-three medical students in their second year of training out of four with no or minimal prior experience in intubation were randomized into two groups, Group A and Group B. The groups differed in the sequence of intubation equipment use. All participants were exposed to a tutorial video before intubating. Number of attempts and time to successful intubation were recorded.
resultsTests of carry-over effects were not significant for time to intubation, number of attempts, and proportion failing. We observed that VL produced a statistically significant lower intubation time among all participants.
conclusionInsufficient training in pediatric intubation, such as identifying anatomical landmarks and mastering correct techniques, may contribute to the high rate of adverse effects in real-life intubation rates. This study shows the importance of providing medical students with accurate, hands-on training in pediatric intubation. The VL has the potential to enhance the students' understanding of key anatomical landmarks and proper intubation techniques. Further research is needed to fully support or reject the hypothesis that teaching with VL will improve intubation success rates.
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.