Direct Laryngoscopy Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach to laryngoscopy for the intubation of critically ill adult patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare video laryngoscopy (VL) vs. direct laryngoscopy (DL) for intubation in emergency department and ICU patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and unpublished sources, from inception to February 27, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adult patients randomized to VL compared with DL for endotracheal intubation. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We pre-registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42023469945). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 20 RCTs ( n = 4569 patients). Compared with DL, VL probably increases first pass success (FPS) (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21; moderate certainty) and probably decreases esophageal intubations (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.82; moderate certainty). VL may result in fewer aspiration events (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09; low certainty) and dental injuries (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.11; low certainty) and may have no effect on mortality (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.07; low certainty) compared with DL. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill adult patients undergoing intubation, the use of VL, compared with DL, probably leads to higher rates of FPS and probably decreases esophageal intubations. VL may result in fewer dental injuries as well as aspiration events compared with DL with no effect on mortality.
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 | 0.037 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".