↓ Skip to main content

Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
167 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1885-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Jiang, Danxu Ma, Bo Li, Yun Yue, Fushan Xue

Abstract

There is significant controversy regarding the influence of video laryngoscopy on the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscopy could improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception until 15 February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings were selected. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes. Twelve studies (2583 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show an improved first-attempt success rate using video laryngoscopy (relative risk [RR], 0.93; P = 0.28; low-quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = 91%). Subgroup analyses showed that, in the prehospital setting, video laryngoscopy decreased the first-attempt success rate (RR, 0.57; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence) and overall success rate (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69; moderate-quality evidence) by experienced operators, whereas in the in-hospital setting, no significant difference between two devices was identified for the first-attempt success rate (RR, 1.06; P = 0.14; moderate-quality evidence), regardless of the experience of the operators or the types of video laryngoscopes used (P > 0.05), although a slightly higher overall success rate was shown (RR, 1.11; P = 0.03; moderate-quality evidence). There were no differences between devices for other outcomes (P > 0.05), except for a lower rate of esophageal intubation (P = 0.01) and a higher rate of Cormack and Lehane grade 1 (P < 0.01) when using video laryngoscopy. On the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that, compared with direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy does not improve intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. Prehospital intubation is even worsened by use of video laryngoscopy when performed by experienced operators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 167 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Other 12 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Engineering 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#164,626
of 15,117,967 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#77
of 4,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,349
of 406,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,117,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.