SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Effectiveness of indirect versus direct laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation in adults undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is not clear whether indirect laryngoscopes are superior to direct laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation and which laryngoscopes are better for nasotracheal intubation. We sought to undertake a ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in patients undergoing nasotracheal intubation.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched electronic databases for prospective randomized studies comparing different tracheal intubation devices in patients undergoing nasotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were first-attempt success rate, glottic visualization, use of Magill forceps, and the use of external laryngeal manipulation. We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models for statistical analysis. We performed frequentist network meta-analysis and generated network plots and network league tables.
resultsWe included 22 studies comparing 10 types of devices. With the Macintosh direct laryngoscope as reference, six indirect laryngoscopes significantly reduced intubation time relative to the Macintosh laryngoscope. In the ranking of intubation time, the C-MAC® D-Blade (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) had the highest P-score (0.98), and the Macintosh blade had the lowest P-score (0.07). In terms of first-attempt success rate, the C-MAC D-Blade had the highest (P-score, 0.78) and the Airway Scope™ S100 (Nihon Koden, Tokyo, Japan) the lowest (P-score, 0.06). Regarding glottic visualization, the Truview EVO2 (Truphatek International, Netanya, Israel) achieved the highest P-score (0.79), while the McCoy laryngoscope (Penlon, Abingdon, UK) had the lowest P-score (0.05).
conclusionsIn the present NMA to establish a ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in patients undergoing nasotracheal intubation, we found that most indirect laryngoscopes likely reduced intubation time, increased first-attempt success rates, and were more effective tracheal intubation devices for nasotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopes The findings of the present a systematic review and NMA support a recommendation for the use of indirect laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation (very low certainty of evidence). STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42023446646 ); first submitted 20 July 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.