Videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy: First‐attempt success rate
Videolaryngoscopy may leads to higher success rate at first attempt compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Videolaryngoscopy vs conventional direct laryngoscopy Success rate at first attempt · neonates (0 to 28 days of age) who needed tracheal intubation Videolaryngoscopy may leads to higher success rate at first attempt compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy (low certainty). Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.24 [1.13, 1.37] | Not reported | Low |
Videolaryngoscopy vs conventional direct laryngoscopy Success rate at first attempt · neonates who needed tracheal intubation Videolaryngoscopy probably leads to higher success rate at first attempt compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy (moderate certainty). Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD009975.PUB3, superseded | RR 1.44 [1.2, 1.73] | Not reported | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.