Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review
Citations
1,762 citations
Cites background from "Videolaryngoscopy versus direct lar..."
...Recommendation 30 ....
[...]
...In a systematic review including 64 studies and 7044 patients, video-laryngoscopy reduced the risk of failed intubation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.65), without a significant impact upon the proportion of successful first-pass attempts (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.48-1.3), hypoxia (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.1-1.44), or time for tracheal intubation [30, 31] ....
[...]
832 citations
Cites background from "Videolaryngoscopy versus direct lar..."
...44), or time for tracheal intubation (30, 31)....
[...]
587 citations
203 citations
161 citations
References
62,157 citations
46,935 citations
23,203 citations
21,235 citations
"Videolaryngoscopy versus direct lar..." refers background or methods in this paper
...• We removed studies for which we had been unable to judge whether data were complete and studies that had a participant loss of more than 10% or participant loss was unexplained.(15) Interpretation of effect estimates remained unchanged for all outcomes except for sore throat on postoperative day 1, for which the removal of one study(82) revealed fewer sore throats when a videolaryngoscope was used (OR, random-effects 0....
[...]
...We considered that I(2) values<40% would not indicate important heterogeneity and above 75% would be substantial.(15) Our choice of a fixed-effect or random-effects statistical model for any meta-analysis was influenced by study characteristics, in particular the amount of methodological or clinical differences between studies....
[...]
...We classified levels of statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic according to Higgins.15 We considered that I2 values 40% would not indicate important heterogeneity and above 75% would be substantial.15 Our choice of a fixed-effect or random-effects statistical model for any meta-analysis was influenced by study characteristics, in particular the amount of methodological or clinical differences between studies....
[...]
...For multi-arm studies, we used an amalgamated comparison group (combining all videolaryngoscopes) compared with the control group, to create a single pair-wise comparison.(15) When it was not possible to amalgamate data without unit of analysis error, we included data from the videolaryngoscope group that would be closest to giving a result of ‘no effect’; these decisions were then addressed in sensitivity analysis....
[...]
...We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of study design and extent of potential bias and considered the following domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors, incomplete data, and selective outcome reporting.(15) It was not possible to blind the intubator to the intervention, nor to blind assessors of process measures....
[...]