SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical efficacy of video double-lumen tube for one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: Double-lumen tube (DLT) is generally regarded as the gold standard for one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. Compared with DLT, video double-lumen tube (VDLT) has an integrated camera, allowing continuous visualization of its position in the trachea. However, the clinical efficacy of VDLT for one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of VDLT for one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to July 2025. This meta-analysis used RevMan and Stata software to implement statistical analysis. The primary outcome was the intubation time. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were performed to evaluate the stability of the results and the publication bias. Results: Eighteen studies involving 1,332 patients were included. For the primary outcome intubation time, extreme and unexplained between-study heterogeneity was observed (I Conclusion: Compared with the DLT, VDLT may provide modest clinical advantages of a shorter intubation time, higher first-attempt success rate, lower mean arterial pressure and heart rate after intubation, shorter repositioning time after dislodgement, and lower incidence of sore throat. However, the primary outcome of intubation time is limited by extreme between-study heterogeneity that could not be explained. Standardized multicenter international randomized trials are warranted to confirm the clinical efficacy of VDLT. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251138139, Identifier: CRD420251138139.
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.