Skip to main content

Table 1 Data extraction

From: A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation

1st Author Quality Device Method N device Predicted easy (MP 1-2) Predicted difficult (MP 3-4) Difficult laryngoscopy (C&L 3-4 on DL) Achievement of C&L I view Time to intubation 95% CI or IQR Success% 1st attempt Overall (OA)
Maharaj (2006) [13] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 60 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL 30 30 0 No data 95% Mean 12.2 100% 1st
Mac DL 70% (95% CI 9.1 to 15.3) 100% OA
Maharaj (2007) [14] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 40 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 20 20 0 No data 95% Mean 13.2 No data
Mac DL 30% (95% CI 10.6 to 15.7)
Maharaj (2007) [15] na Airtraq Observational, Case series, 7 subjects, failed Mac DL 7 0 7 4 C&L 4 100% Mean 14 No data
Mac DL 0% (95% CI 8.5 to 18.9)
Ndoko (2007) [16] (-) Airtraq Randomized, 70 subjects, Mac DL v Airtraq, risk of difficulty 35 0 35 No data No data Mean 30 100% OA
(95% CI 21.4 to 35.8)
Arslan (2009) [17] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 86 subjects, Airtraq v CTrach, Cervical spine limitation (collar) 43 42 1 No data No data Mean 25.6 No data
(95% CI 21.4 to 29.8)
Dhonneur (2009) [18] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 318 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL v CTrach, obese 106 82 24 No data 94% Mean 29 No data
Mac DL 51% (95% CI 26.7 to 31.3)
Lange (2009) [19] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 60 subjects, Mac DL then Airtraq v GlideScope 30 26 4 4 C&L 3-4 90% Mean 19.7 No data
Mac DL 57% (95% CI to 15.7 to 23.8)
Malin (2009) [20] na Airtraq Observational, Case series, 47 subjects, failed Mac DL 47 0 47 47 C&L 2b-4 85% No data 95% 1st
Mac DL 0% 100%OA
Turkstra (2009) [21] (+) Airtraq Randomized, cross-over,24 subjects, Airtraq v Mac, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 24 24 0 2 90% Median 8.8 100% 1st
Mac DL 20% (IQR 6.7 to 10.6) 100% OA
Chalkeidis (2010) [22] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 63 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL 35 25 10 No data No data Mean 30 80% OA
(95% CI 27.1 to 32.9)
Koh (2010) [23] (+) Airtraq Randomized, 50 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (collar) 25 20 5 No data No data Mean 50 100% OA
(95% CI to 36.2 to 63.8)
Halligan (2003) [24] na Bonfils Observational, Case series, 60 subjects 60 58 2 No data No data Median 33 98% OA
(IQR 24 to 50)
Wong (2003) [25] na Bonfils Observational, Case series, 36 subjects 36 No data No data No data No data Median 80 86% OA
(No IQR report)
Bein (2004) [26] (-) Bonfils Randomized, 80 subjects, Bonfils v ILMA, Risk of difficulty 40 12 28 No data No data Median 40 98% 1st
(IQR 23 to 77) 100% OA
Bein (2004) [27] na Bonfils Observational, Case series, 25 subjects, failed Mac DL 25 0 No data 25 No data Median 48 No data
(IQR 30 to 80)
Wahlen (2004) [28] (-) Bonfils Randomized, 48 subjects, Bonfils v Mac DL v Bullard v ILMA 12 12 0 No data No data Mean 52 92% OA
(95% CI 38.1 to 66.1)
Byhahn (2008) [29] (+) Bonfils Randomized, 76 subjects, Bonfils v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (collar) 38 38 0 Mac group 17 82% Mean 64 71% 1st
Mac DL 5% (95% CI 56.1 to 71.9) 82% OA
Corbanese (2009) [30] na Bonfils Observational, Case series, 100 subjects 100 100 0 No data No data Median 30 89% 1st
(IQR 25 to 40) 98% OA
Corso (2010) [31] na Bonfils Observational, Case series, 10 subjects 10 No data No data No data No data No data No data
MacQuarrie (1999)[32] na Bullard Observational, Case series, 80 subjects, Cervical spine limitation (collar) 40 x 2 grps 28 No data 52 No data MFIS group 89% 1st
Mean 41 98% OA
(95% CI 35.3 to 46.7)
ISETT group
Mean 45.4 (95% CI 39.4 to 51.4)
Shulman (2001) [33] (-) Bullard Randomized, cross-over, 50 subjects, Bullard v FOI, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 25 x 2 grps No data No data No data No data Standard Group: Mean 37 85% OA
(95% CI 26.2 to 47.8)
Cricoid Group
Mean 38 (95% CI 26.9 to 49.1)
Wahlen (2004) [28] (+) Bullard Randomized, 48 subjects, Bullard v Mac v Bonfils v ILMA 12 12 0 No data 92% Mean 16.1 92% 1st
Mac DL 33% (95% CI 12.1 to 20) 92%OA
Nileshwar (2007) [34] (+) Bullard Randomized, 62 subjects, Mac DL then Bullard v ILMA, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 31 19 No data 12 No data Mean 84 86% 1st
(95% CI 66.4 to 101.6) 90% OA
Teoh (2010) [35] (+) C-MAC Randomized, 400 subjects GlideScope v Pentax AWS v C-MAC v MacDL 100 85 15 No data 87% Mean 31.9 93% 1st
(95% CI 28.4 to 35.4) 100% OA
Dhonneur (2006) [36] (+) CTrach Randomized, 104 subjects, Mac DL v CTrach, obese 52 43 9 No data 75% Mean 176 No data
(95% CI 166 to 186)
Goldman (2006) [37] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 328 subjects 328 No data No data No data 91% No data No data
Goldman (2006) [38] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 6 subjects 6 3 3 6 100% No data No data
Mac DL 0%
Liu (2006) [39] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 100 subjects 100 84 26 9 28% Median 166 No data
Mac DL 59% (IQR 114 to 233)
Timmerman (2006) [40] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 10 subjects 10 No data No data No data 30% No data No data
Timmerman (2006) [41] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 60 subjects 60 No data No data 3 55% No data No data
Cattano (2007) [42] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 15 subjects, obese 15 No data No data No data 60% No data No data
Dhonneur (2007) [43] (+) CTrach Randomized, 120 subjects, CTrach v MacDL 60 No data No data No data 93% Mean 119 No data
(95% CI 107.6 to 130.4)
Ng (2007) [44] (-) CTrach Randomized trial, 106 subjects, CTrach v GlideScope 54 54 0 No data 85% Mean 73 No data
(95% CI 63.2 to 82.8)
Liu (2008) [45] (+) CTrach Randomized, 271 subjects, CTrach v ILMA (Fastrach) 134 118 16 13 93% Median 116 93% 1st
Mac DL 59% (IQR 82 to 156) 100% OA
Nickel (2008) [46] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 16 subjects 16 No data No data No data 44% No data No data
Arslan (2009) [17] (+) CTrach Randomized, 86 subjects, Airtraq v CTrach, Cervical spine limitation (collar) 43 42 1 No data No data Mean 66.3 93% 1st
(95% CI 57.3 to 75.3) 100% OA
Dhonneur (2009) [18] (+) CTrach Randomized, 318 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL v CTrach, obese 106 78 28 No data 97% Mean 109 100% OA
Mac DL 51%, (95% CI 103.9 to 114.1)
Liu (2009) [47] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 48 subjects 48 18 30 26 in 96% No data No data
Mac DL 0%
Malik (2009) [48] (+) CTrach Randomized, 90 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac DL v CTrach, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 30 30 0 No data 67% Median 46 84% 1st
Mac DL 20% (IQR 38 to 107) 90% OA
Ng (2009) [49] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 50 subjects, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 50 45 5 11 98% No data No data
Mac DL 44%
Swadia (2009) [50] na CTrach Observational, Case series, 20 subjects 20 20 0 No data 60% Mean 347.8 No data
(95% CI 342.8 to 352.8)
Agro (2003) [4] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 15 subjects, C spine limitation (collar) 15 No data No data 10 33% Mean 38 No data
Mac DL 0% (no SD report)
Cooper (2005) [51] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 728 subjects 728 579 148 34/133 86% No data 96% OA
Mac DL 49%
Doyle (2005) [52] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 747 subjects 747 No data No data No data No data No data 100 % OA
Hsiao (2005) [53] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 103 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope 103 No data No data 22 80% No data No data
Mac DL 52%
Lim (2005) [54] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 60 subjects, GlideScope v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 30 30 0 8 in Mac DL group 67% Mean 41.8 86% 1st
Mac DL 13% (95% CI 34.2 to 49.4) 94% OA
Rai (2005) [55] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 50 subjects 50 No data No data 1 88% Median 40 No data
Mac DL 44% (IQR 30 to 55)
Sun (2005) [56] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL then Mac v GlideScope 100 88 12 15 75% Mean 46 94% 1st
Mac DL 59% (95% CI 42 to 49) 99% OA
Turkstra (2005) [57] (+) GlideScope Randomized, cross-over, 36 subjects, Mac DL and GlideScope, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 18 16 2 No data No data Mean 27 No data
(95% CI 21.0 to 33.0)
Ng (2007) [44] (-) GlideScope Randomized, 106 subjects, CTrach v GlideScope 52 52 0 No data 100 % Mean 43 No data
(95% CI 36.9 to 49.1)
Xue (2007) [58] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 91 subjects 91 79 12 19/27 74% Mean 38 97% 1st
Mac DL 11% (95% CI 35.7 to 40.3) 100% OA
Malik (2008) [59] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 120 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v Mac DL v Truview, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 30 30 0 No data 70% Mean 18.9 No data
Mac DL 20% (95% CI 16.7 to 21.9)
Tremblay (2008) [60] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 400 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope 400 347 53 26 90% Mean 21 84% 1st
Mac DL 67% (95% CI 19.6 to 22.4) 99% OA
Robitaille (2008) [61] (+) GlideScope Randomized, cross over, 20 subjects, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 20 No data No data 1 50% No data No data
Mac DL 0%
Bathory (2009) [62] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 50 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 50 48 2 50 8% Median 50 No data
Mac DL 0% (IQR 41-63 s)
Stroumpoulis [63] (2009) na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 112 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope, 112 70 42 41 61% No data 90% 1st
Mac DL 38% 98% OA
Lange (2009) [19] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 60 subjects, Mac DL then Airtraq v GlideScope 30 27 3 5 90% Mean 17.3 97% 1st
Mac DL 63% (95% CI 14.8 to 19.8) 100% OA
Liu (2009) [64] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 70 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS), cervical spine limitation (MILS) 35 23 12 20 40% Mean 71.9 No data
Mac DL 20% (95% CI 55.5 to 88.3)
Maassen (2009) [65] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese 50 37 13 17 No data Mean 33 No data
(95% CI 27.9 to 38.1)
Malik (2009) [66] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 75 subjects,Pentax AWS v GlideScope v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty 25 0 25 No data 88% Median 17 88 % 1st
(IQR 12 to 21) 96% OA
Nouruzi-Sedeh (2009) [67] (-) GlideScope Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL v GlideScope, untrained operators 100 No data No data No data 66% Mean 63 93% 1st
Mac DL 32% (95% CI 57.0 to 68.9) 100% OA
Teoh (2009) [68] (-) GlideScope Randomized, 140 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS 70 62 8 No data 81% Median 27.8 No data
(IQR 22 to 36)
Turkstra (2009) [69] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 80 subjects, GlideScope alone (comparing stylets) 79 67 12 No data 73% Median 37 92% 1st
96% OA
Van Zundert (2009)[70] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath 150 134 16 No data No data Mean 34 No data
(95% CI 30.8 to 37.2)
Hirabayashi (2010) [71] (-) GlideScope Randomized, 200 subjects, GlideScope v Mac DL 100 No data No data No data No data Mean 64 94% 1st
(95% CI 57.5 to 70.5) 100% OA
Serocki (2010) [72] (+) GlideScope Randomized, cross-over, 120 subjects GlideScope v V-MAC v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty 120 68 52 36 36% Median 33 91% 1st
Mac DL 0% (IQR 18 to 38) 100% OA
Siu (2010) [73] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 742 subjects 742 408 256 78 62% No data No data
Teoh (2010) [35] (+) GlideScope Randomized, 400 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v CMAC v Mac DL 100 71 29 No data 78% Mean 31 91% 1st
(95% CI 28.0 to 34.0) 100% OA
Aziz (2011) [74] na GlideScope Observational, Case series, 2004 subjects 2004 1329 675 239 failed DL No data No data No data
Shippey (2007) [75] na McGrath Observational, Case series, 75 subjects 75 63 11 1 No data Median 25 93% 1st
(IQR 18.5 to 34.4) 98% OA
O’Leary (2008) [76] na McGrath Observational, Case series, 30 subjects, failed DL 30 No data No data 12 77% No data No data
Mac DL 3%
Maassen (2009) [65] (+) McGrath Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese 50 38 12 14 No data Mean 41 8% 1st
(95% CI 33.9 to 48.1) 100% OA
Van Zundert (2009)[70] (+) McGrath Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath 150 133 17 No data No data Mean 38 83% OA
(95% CI 34.3 to 41.7)
Walker (2009) [77] (+) McGrath Randomized, 120 subjects, McGrath v Mac DL 60 58 2 No data No data Median 47 95% 1st
(IQR 39 to 60) 100% OA
Hughes (2010) [78] na McGrath Observational, Case series, 6 subjects 6 No data No data No data No data No data No data
Noppens (2010) [79] na McGrath Observational, Case series, 61 subjects, C&L 3-4 failed Mac DL 61 No data No data 61 C&L 3-4 87% No data 95% OA
Mac DL 0%
Asai (2008) [80] na Pentax AWS Observational, Case series, 100 subjects 100 100 0 No data No data Median 35 96% 1st, 99%OA
(No IQR report)
Enomoto (2008) [81] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, cross-over, 203 subjects, Mac DL v Pentax AWS, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 203 194 9 22 Mac DL 61% Mean 54  
(95% CI 52.1 to 55.9)
Hirabayashi (2008) [82] na Pentax AWS Observational, Case series, 405 subjects 405 No data No data 16 No data Mean 42 95% 1st
(95% CI 3.8 to 81) 100%OA
Malik (2008) [59] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 120 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac v GS v Truview, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 30 30 0 No data 97% Mean 16.7 No data
Mac DL 20% (95% CI 14 to 19.4)
Suzuki (2008) [83] na Pentax AWS Observational, Case series, 320 subjects 320 265 55 46 99% Mean 20.1 96% 1st
Mac DL 55% (95% CI 19 to 21.2) 100% OA
Asai (2009) [84] na Pentax AWS Observational, Case series, 270 subjects, difficult Mac DLs 270 179 91 256 96% No data No data
Mac DL 0%
Hirabayashi (2009) [85] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 520 subjects, Mac DL v Pentax AWS 264 No data No data No data No data Mean 44 96% 1st
(95% CI 41.7 to 46.2) 100% OA
Liu (2009) [64] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 70 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope, Cervical spine limitation (MILS) 35 25 10 19 97% Mean 34.2 100% OA
Mac DL 19% (95% CI 25.6 to 42.8)
Malik (2009) [48] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 90 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac v CTrach, cervical spine limitation (MILS) 30 30 0 No data 100% Median 10 93% 1st
Mac DL 20% (IQR 8 to 15) 100%OA
Malik (2009) [66] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 75 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope v Mac, Risk of difficulty 25 1 24 No data 100% Median 15 72 % 1st
(IQR 8 to 31) 100% OA
Teoh (2009) [68] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 140 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope 70 60 10 No data 98% Median 19 87% 1st
(IQR 14 to 4.5) 100 OA
Teoh (2010) [35] (+) Pentax AWS Randomized, 400 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v C-MAC v Mac DL 100 83 17 No data 97% Mean 20.6 95% 1st
(95% CI 18.3 to 22.9) 100% OA
Kaplan (2006) [86] na V-MAC Observational, Case series, 865 subjects, Mac DL then V-MAC 865 No data No data 123 56% No data No data
Mac DL 36%
Cavus (2009) [87] na C-MAC Observational, Case series, 60 subjects 60 42 18 No data No data Median 16 87% 1st
(IQR 6 to 58) 100% OA
Jungbauer (2009) [88] (+) V-MAC Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL v V-MAC, at risk of difficulty 100 1 99 36 45% Mean 40 No data
Mac DL 23% (95% CI 33.9 to 46.1)
Maassen (2009) [65] (+) V-MAC Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese 50 37 13 14 No data Mean 17 No data
(95% CI 15 to 19)
Van Zundert (2009)[70] (+) V-MAC Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath 150 132 18 No data No data Mean 18 No data
(95% CI 16.1 to 19.9)
Meininger (2010) [89] na C-MAC Observational, Case series, 94 subjects Mac DL then C-MAC 94 No data No data 18 43% No data No data
Mac DL 35%
Serocki (2010) [72] (++) V-MAC Randomized, cross-over, 120 subjects GlideScope v V-MAC v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty 120 68 52 36 31% Median 27 No data
Mac DL 0% (IQR 17 to 94)
  1. (Refer to Table 4 for guide to quality assessment grading).
\