SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Interventions to improve neonatal and infant intubation success: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 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
The aim of this study is to synthesize and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving endotracheal intubation success in neonates and infants. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through July 2025. Randomized studies involving neonatal or infant endotracheal intubation were included regardless of intervention or comparator. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random-effects inverse-variance model. Results are reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Thirty studies published between 2002 and 2025 were included from 287 screened records. Most intubations were elective and performed in neonatal intensive care units or operating rooms. Video laryngoscopy improved first-attempt success compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.20; high-certainty evidence). Pharmacologic interventions, particularly neuromuscular blocking agents and sedatives, generally increased success. Noninvasive respiratory support during intubation improved success (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38; moderate-certainty evidence). Time to successful intubation was similar across most interventions, except for neuromuscular blockade, which shortened intubation duration. Desaturation-related outcomes did not differ.
conclusionVideo laryngoscopy improves first-attempt intubation success with high-certainty evidence, and noninvasive respiratory support most likely improves success. These findings support their use during neonatal and infant intubation. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Intubation in neonates and infants carries a high complication risk, making fi rst-attempt successcritical. • Video laryngoscopy and pharmacological premedication each improve intubation conditions but have previouslybeen evaluated in isolation. WHAT IS NEW: • Pooled randomized evidence confi rms with high certainty that video laryngoscopy improves fi rst-attempt success over direct laryngoscopy without prolonging intubation time. • Non-invasive respiratory support during intubation most likely improves fi rst-attempt success and physiologicalsafety.
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.