MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364376428 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2022-056

Use of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy as a teaching tool for neonatal intubation: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4364376428 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jenna MacKinnon, Carolyn McCoy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntubationLaryngoscopyMedicineAirwayCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewEndotracheal intubationCINAHLAnesthesiaMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Endotracheal intubation and positive pressure ventilation following delivery are required in 32.9% of neonates <31 weeks gestational age and in 5.9% of older newborn babies [1]. Competency in intubation is important, yet opportunities for learners to develop this skill in the clinical environment are limited. Direct laryngoscopy (DL) provides a direct view of the airway during intubation. Unfortunately, visualization of the airway is only available to the primary operator, preventing supervising instructors from simultaneously viewing the airway and allowing them to provide real-time feedback to learners. Video laryngoscopy (VL) is a specialized clinical instrument that utilizes an indirect view of the airway that is digitally projected onto a screen via camera, which allows multiple simultaneous viewers to view the airway during intubation attempts and permits instructors to provide real-time feedback to learners accordingly. Objectives: This systematic review explores whether VL-supported learning is superior to DL for the development of skill in neonatal intubation. Methods: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were conducted without language restrictions. Studies published between January 2011 and November 2021 were examined. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of VL versus DL for supporting neonatal intubation learning were included. Rate of successful intubation was the primary outcome measure. Both authors independently extracted study data and conducted risk of bias assessment. Results: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with two incorporating crossover designs. Each examined the effectiveness of VL versus DL, with concurrent supervisor support, as a tool for learning neonatal intubation in medical residents. All studies reported significantly higher intubation success rates with VL. Conclusion: VL and real-time supervisor feedback is a more effective tool for supporting the development of neonatal intubation skill, compared with DL. Future investigations should include learners from other professions whose scope of practice includes neonatal intubation (eg, respiratory therapists).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207