FindTrial
Sign In

Glidescope vs Macintosh laryngoscope at hemodynamic response in tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Glidescope vs Macintosh laryngoscope at hemodynamic response in tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Glidescope vs Macintosh laryngoscope at hemodynamic response

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Unknown
Source
JPRN
Registry ID
JPRN-UMIN000031572
Enrollment
800
Registered
2018-04-01
Start date
2017-02-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-06-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Patients who need tracheal intubation with Glidescope or macintosh

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Saitama Medical University Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology
Lead Sponsor
Teikyo University School of Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare
Collaborator

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: We searched for all trials that compared measures associated with oral or nasal intubation between use of the Glidescope and use of the Macintosh laryngoscope for direct laryngoscopy in adult patients.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: We excluded the studies that reported the parameters without the hemodynamic changes: i.e. HR and MBP.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The outcome of this meta-analysis was to determine whether the Glidescope and the Macintosh laryngoscope reduce the hemodynamic responses -heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP)-at 60, 120, 180, 300 second (s) after tracheal intubation.—

Countries

Japan

Contacts

Public ContactHiroshi Hoshijima

Saitama Medical University Hospital Department of Anesthesiology

hhoshi@saitama-med.ac.jp049-276-1271

Outcome results

None listed

Source: JPRN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Jul 3, 2026