PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Clístenes C Carvalho
AU  - Stéphanie LPA Regueira
AU  - Ana Beatriz S Souza
AU  - Lucas MLF Medeiros
AU  - Marielle BS Manoel
TI  - Ranking videolaryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopes by orotracheal intubation performance in children: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials at patient level
AID  - 10.1101/2021.01.25.21250439
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.01.25.21250439
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/30/2021.01.25.21250439.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/30/2021.01.25.21250439.full
AB  - 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo fundingAuthor 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).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.YesNot applicableNot applicable