Clinical Impact of External Laryngeal Manipulation During Laryngoscopy on Tracheal Intubation Success in Critically Ill Children*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: External laryngeal manipulation is a commonly used maneuver to improve visualization of the glottis during tracheal intubation in children. However, the effectiveness to improve tracheal intubation attempt success rate in the nonanesthesia setting is not clear. The study objective was to evaluate the association between external laryngeal manipulation use and initial tracheal intubation attempt success in PICUs. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using a multicenter emergency airway quality improvement registry. SETTING: Thirty-five PICUs within general and children's hospitals (29 in the United States, three in Canada, one in Japan, one in Singapore, and one in New Zealand). PATIENTS: Critically ill children (< 18 years) undergoing initial tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy in PICUs between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to evaluate the association between external laryngeal manipulation and initial attempt success while adjusting for underlying differences in patient and clinical care factors: age, obesity, tracheal intubation indications, difficult airway features, provider training level, and neuromuscular blockade use. External laryngeal manipulation was defined as any external force to the neck during laryngoscopy. Of the 7,825 tracheal intubations, the initial tracheal intubation attempt was successful in 1,935/3,274 intubations (59%) with external laryngeal manipulation and 3,086/4,551 (68%) without external laryngeal manipulation (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.75; p < 0.001). In propensity score-matched analysis, external laryngeal manipulation remained associated with lower initial tracheal intubation attempt success (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: External laryngeal manipulation during direct laryngoscopy was associated with lower initial tracheal intubation attempt success in critically ill children, even after adjusting for underlying differences in patient factors and provider levels. The indiscriminate use of external laryngeal manipulation cannot be recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".