ABSTRACT
Background Videolaryngoscopes (VLs) are regarded to improve glottic visualization as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (ML). However, we currently do not know which one would be the best choice. We then designed this systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank the different VLs as compared to ML.
Methods We will conduct a search in PubMed, LILACS, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6) on 11/01/2021. We will include randomized clinical trials fully reported with patients aged ≥ 16 years, comparing VLs with ML for failed intubation with the device, failed first intubation attempts, number of intubation attempts, time for intubation, difficulty of intubation, and improved visualization of the larynx. Pooled effects will be estimated by both fixed and random-effects models and presented according to qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity assessment. Sensitivity analyses will be performed as well as a priori subgroup, meta-regression and multiple meta-regression analyses. Additionally, network meta-analyses will be applied to rank the different VLs as compared to ML. We will also assess the risk of selective publication by funnel plot asymmetry.
Discussion This systematic review and network meta-analysis aim at helping health services and clinicians involved in airway manipulation choose the best VLs for orotracheal intubation.
Systematic review registration The current protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 07/01/2021.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This systematic review will be authors own work and no financial support is expected.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
E-mail: clistenescristian{at}hotmail.com, E-mail: danimelos{at}gmail.com, E-mail: vmlemos1992{at}gmail.com, E-mail: thiagogadelha1{at}gmail.com, E-mail: ikaroagra6{at}icloud.com, E-mail: gustavo.mina01{at}gmail.com, E-mail: isabellabeserramos{at}gmail.com, E-mail: uri.cost4{at}gmail.com, E-mail: jaymemed{at}yahoo.com.br
Writing of the protocol: CCC
Review of the protocol: JMSN, DMS, VML, T, ICA, GMP, IBR, YSCC
Final protocol approval: CCC, JMSN, DMS, VML, T, ICA, GMP, IBR, YSCC
SUPPORT This systematic review will be authors’ own work and no financial support is expected.
Data Availability
Not applicable
