Cochrane · systematic review · CD011136
Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation
Hansel, J, Rogers, AM, Lewis, SR, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
21
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 33.3%Low 5 · 23.8%Moderate 9 · 42.9%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsMacintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation
Population: adults undergoing tracheal intubation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failed intubation Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.41 [0.26, 0.65] | 41 studies · 4615 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hypoxaemia Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.72 [0.52, 0.99] | 16 studies · 2127 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Successful first attempt Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 1.05 [1.02, 1.09] | 42 studies · 7311 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Oesophageal intubation Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.51 [0.22, 1.21] | 14 studies · 2404 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dental trauma Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.68 [0.16, 2.89] | 18 studies · 2297 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cormack‐Lehane grade Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.38 [0.29, 0.48] | 38 studies · 4368 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Time for tracheal intubation Macintosh‐style videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | no estimate extracted | 35 studies · 4061 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation
Population: adults undergoing tracheal intubation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failed intubation Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.51 [0.34, 0.76] | 63 studies · 7146 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hypoxaemia Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.49 [0.22, 1.11] | 15 studies · 1691 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Successful first attempt Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 1.03 [1, 1.05] | 66 studies · 8086 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Oesophageal intubation Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.39 [0.18, 0.81] | 14 studies · 1968 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Dental trauma Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.51 [0.16, 1.59] | 30 studies · 3497 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cormack‐Lehane grade Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.15 [0.1, 0.24] | 54 studies · 6058 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Time for tracheal intubation Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | no estimate extracted | 59 studies · 6644 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Channelled videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation
Population: adults undergoing tracheal intubation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failed intubation Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.43 [0.3, 0.61] | 53 studies · 5367 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hypoxia Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.25 [0.12, 0.5] | 15 studies · 1966 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Successful first attempt Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 1.1 [1.05, 1.15] | 47 studies · 5210 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Oesophageal intubation Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.54 [0.17, 1.75] | 16 studies · 1756 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dental trauma Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.52 [0.13, 2.12] | 29 studies · 2375 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cormack‐Lehane grade Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | RR 0.14 [0.09, 0.21] | 40 studies · 3955 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Time for tracheal intubation Channelled videolaryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy | no estimate extracted | 57 studies · 5676 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |