SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Comparing the effectiveness and safety of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the paediatric emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the PDCA cycle management in quality improvement of endotracheal intubation in emergency department among standardised training residents.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Carbon footprint comparison of video intubation tools: Disposable laryngoscopes, reusable laryngoscopes, and stylets.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endotracheal intubation is an uncommon procedure for children in the emergency department but can be technically difficult and cause significant adverse effects. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) offers improved first-pass success rates over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for both adults and children undergoing elective surgery. This systematic review was designed to evaluate current evidence regarding how the effectiveness and safety of VL compares to DL for intubation of children in emergency departments. Methods: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science) were searched on 11 Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria representing 5,586 intubations. All included studies were observational. Significantly greater first-pass success rate was demonstrated with VL compared to DL (OR 1.64, 95% CI [1.21-2.21], Conclusion: VL can offer improved first-pass success rates over DL for children intubated in the emergency department. However, the quality of current evidence is low and further randomised studies are required to clarify which patient groups may benefit most from use of VL. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=415039, Identifier CRD42023415039.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.