ABSTRACT
Background Videolaryngoscopy was shown to improve glottic visualization in children as compared to direct laryngoscopy, but at the expenses of delayed time for intubation. As little evidence is available regarding the relative performance of different laryngoscopes at present, we designed this systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank the different videolaryngoscopes (VLs) and direct laryngoscopes (DLs) for orotracheal intubation in children.
Methods We will conduct a search in PubMed, LILACS, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 1) on 27/01/2021. We will include randomized clinical trials fully reported with patients aged ≤ 18 years, making comparisons between different types of laryngoscopes (any of both VLs and DLs) for failed first intubation attempt, intubation time, number of attempts at intubation or number of unsuccessful intubations, failed intubation, glottic view score, or adverse responses to endotracheal intubation. 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 and DLs. We will also assess the risk of selective publication by funnel plot asymmetry.
Discussion This systematic review and network meta-analysis aim to understand which laryngoscopes perform better than others for orotracheal intubation.
Systematic review registration The current protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 25/01/2021.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding
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All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
SUPPORT This systematic review will be authors’ own work and no financial support is expected.
Data Availability
Not applicable
Data Availability
Not applicable
