ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Comparison of tracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscope-assisted flexible tracheoscopy in patients with simulated manual in-line stabilisation - A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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 and Aims: Airway management in cervical spine injury is challenging, and combining videolaryngoscopy with a flexible tracheoscope could enhance glottic visualisation, addressing the limitations when used alone. This prospective, open-label, randomised trial compared videolaryngoscopy-assisted flexible tracheoscopy (VLF) with videolaryngoscopy using a rigid stylet (VLS) for orotracheal intubation under simulated manual in-line stabilisation (MILS). Methods: A total of 158 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I-III patients, aged 18-60 years, scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were enroled; 157 were analysed (VLF, Results: The median (interquartile range) intubation time was significantly shorter with VLF [66 (57-78) s] compared to VLS [80 (70-95) s], with a median difference of 14 s (95% confidence interval: 8,18; Conclusion: VLF provided faster and more reliable intubation than VLS during MILS, without increase in complications. This technique may be a valuable option for airway management when cervical spine movement must be minimised.
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.