RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Ranking videolaryngoscopes by orotracheal intubation performance: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials at patient level
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.18.21250062
DO 10.1101/2021.01.18.21250062
A1 de Carvalho, Clístenes Crístian
A1 da Silva, Danielle Melo
A1 Lemos, Victor Macedo
A1 dos Santos, Thiago Gadelha Batista
A1 Agra, Ikaro Cavalcante
A1 Miná Pinto, Gustavo
A1 Ramos, Isabella Beserra
A1 da Cunha Costa, Yuri Soares
A1 dos Santos Neto, Jayme Marques
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/20/2021.01.18.21250062.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis systematic review will be authors own work and no financial support is expected.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesNot applicable