Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jiang, Jia; Kang, Na; Li, Bo; Wu, An-Shi; Xue, Fu-Shan

doi:10.1186/s13049-020-0702-7

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment of 23 included RCTs and non-RCTs

From: Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis

RCTs	Study Authors	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of participants and personnel^a	Blinding of outcome assessment^a	Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting	Other bias	Overall
	Driver et al., 2016	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Gao et al., 2018	Unclear	Unclear	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Unclear
	Goksu et al., 2016	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Griesdale et al., 2012	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Janz et al., 2016	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Kim et al., 2016	Low	Low^b	low	low	Low	low	low	Low
	Lascarrou et al., 2017	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Silverberg et al., 2015	High^c	Unclear	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	High
	Susler et al., 2016	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Yeatts et al., 2013	Low	Low	Low	Low	High^d	Low	Low	High
non-RCTs	Study Authors	Confounding	Selection of participants into study	Classification of interventions	Deviations from intended interventions	Missing data	Measurement of outcomes	Selection of reported results	Overall
	Campagne et al., 2008	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear
	De Jong et al., 2013	Serious^e	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Serious^f	Low	Serious
	Driver et al., 2018	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Moderate
	Hypes et al., 2016	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
	Khandelwal et al., 2014	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
	Kory et al., 2013	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Serious^g	Low	Serious
	Lakticova et al., 2015	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
	Lee et al., 2014	Serious^e	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Serious
	Noppens et al., 2012	Serious^e	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Serious
	Okamoto et al., 2018	Serious ^eh	Moderate	Moderate	moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Serious
	Park et al., 2015	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
	Sakles et al., 2015	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Serious	Low	Serious
	Vassiliadis et al., 2015	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Serious^f	Low	Serious

^aAlthough all studies did not use blinded method, authors judged that the outcome would not be likely to be influenced as patients were unaware of their grouping and it was impossible for operators to be unaware of the patients’ grouping during intubation process. Moreover, although subjective judgments may bias the results in the absence of blinding, most of our important endpoints are robust; ^bIntubation was required so emergently that a randomization envelope could not be obtained; ^cAn even/odd numbered randomization strategy was used; ^dThere was no reason for missing data provided in this study.
^eThe skill of operators was significantly different between groups; ^fThe analysis was based on the number of intubations rather than the number of patients; ^gThe methods of data collection were different; ^hIndications of intubation were different between groups

Back to article page

ISSN: 1757-7241

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com