↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

57 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


61 Dimensions

Readers on

185 Mendeley
Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009975.pub3
Pubmed ID

Krithika Lingappan, Jennifer L Arnold, Caraciolo J Fernandes, Mohan Pammi


Establishment of a secure airway is a critical part of neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room and the neonatal unit. Videolaryngoscopy has the potential to facilitate successful endotracheal intubation and decrease adverse consequences of delay in airway stabilization. Videolaryngoscopy may enhance visualization of the glottis and intubation success in neonates. To determine the efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy in decreasing the time and attempts required for endotracheal intubation and increasing the success rate at first intubation in neonates. We used the search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal. In May 2017, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating videolaryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com, and reference lists of relevant studies. RCTs or quasi-RCTs in neonates evaluating videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy. Review authors performed data collection and analysis as recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion.We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. The search yielded 7057 references of which we identified three RCTs for inclusion, four ongoing trials and one study awaiting classification. All three included RCTs compared videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy during intubation attempts by trainees.Time to intubation was similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (mean difference (MD) -0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.50 to 5.26; 2 studies; 311 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the number of intubation attempts (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07; 2 studies; 427 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that videolaryngoscopy increased the success of intubation at first attempt (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.73; typical risk difference (RD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.28; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; 3 studies; 467 intubation attempts).Desaturation episodes during intubation attempts were similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (MD -0.76, 95% CI -5.74 to 4.23; 2 studies; 359 intubations) (low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of airway trauma due to intubation attempts (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.80; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; 1 study; 213 intubations) (low quality evidence).There were no data available on other adverse effects of videolaryngoscopy. Moderate to very low quality evidence suggests that videolaryngoscopy increases the success of intubation in the first attempt but does not decrease the time to intubation or the number of attempts for intubation. However, these studies were conducted with trainees performing the intubations and these results highlight the potential usefulness of the videolaryngoscopy as a teaching tool. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are necessary to confirm efficacy and address safety and cost-effectiveness of videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates by trainees and those proficient in direct laryngoscopy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 184 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Other 20 11%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Master 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Other 47 25%
Unknown 48 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Unspecified 11 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 62 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2018.
All research outputs
of 20,115,055 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 296,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,115,055 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.