Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Video laryngoscopy as a teaching tool in direct intubation in undergraduate medical education - a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect laryngoscopy (DL) is a crucial skill and continues to be indispensable. While the superiority of video laryngoscopy (VL) has been demonstrated regarding the rate of first attempt successful intubations, its application as a teaching tool for DL remains largely unexplored. We hypothesised a higher first-pass success and shorter durations of conventional intubation after video laryngoscopy supported training (VLF = video-laryngoscopy based feedback) compared to students trained without VL (DLF = direct-laryngoscopy based feedback).
methodsAll 211 medical students (DLF: 92/ VLF:119) trained conventional intubation, using a manikin in an airway course during their anaesthesiology rotation in fourth year of medical school. The study period was October 2023 to August 2024. In the DLF group, the tutor could only provide feedback via an intermittent direct view of the larynx during intubation whereas in the VLF group, the tutor had a continuous view via the monitor. Students of the VLF group did not get a view of the monitor and performed laryngoscopy via direct view. The main outcome measures were the first-pass success, time for intubation, Cormack-Lehane Score, occurrence of tooth damage, a difficulty score and a self-confidence score.
resultsBoth groups achieved a high rate of first-pass success (DLF 97,8% vs. VLF 100%, p = 0.081). Nevertheless, we found a significant difference concerning duration of intubation (DLF 21,49s ± 7,421 vs. VLF 24,75s ± 10,371, p = 0.008). DLF group demonstrated a higher reduction in a subjective difficulty score (p = 0.018). Both groups demonstrated enhanced confidence regarding airway management following training favouring DLF group (difference between the groups: p = 0.039).
conclusionsTeaching direct laryngoscopy by using the video laryngoscope monitor as a teaching tool for the tutor seems to give students more detailed feedback and a more realistic rating of the difficulty level, which is reflected in the students spending more time on the task, a smaller decrease in the difficulty value and a more realistic self-assessment. Furthermore, a higher first-pass success in our assessment with direct laryngoscopy is reached after video-laryngoscopy based feedback training. We assume that this method holds great chances for teaching practice.
trial registrationDRKS00032815 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00032815 .
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.