Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Video‐laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates)

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011413Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 05 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Anestesia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Ibtihal S Abdelgadir

    Correspondencia a: Paediatrics, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Robert S Phillips

    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

  • Michael P Moncreiff

    Department of Anaesthesia, Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust, Huddersfield, UK

  • Joanne L Lumsden

    Department of Paediatrics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, UK

Contributions of authors

Ibtihal S Abdelgadir (IA), Joanne L Lumsden (JL), Michael P Moncreiff (MM), Robert S Phillips (RP)

Conceiving the review: IA.
Co‐ordinating the review: IA, JL.
Undertaking manual searches: IA, MM.
Screening search results: IA, MM.
Organizing retrieval of papers: IA.
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: IA, MM.
Appraising quality of papers: IA, MM.
Abstracting data from papers: IA, MM.
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: IA.
Providing additional data about papers: IA.
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: IA, MM.
Data management for the review: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Entering data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.3): IA, MM.
RevMan statistical data: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Interpretation of data: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Statistical inferences: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Writing the review: IA, MM, JL, RP.
Securing funding for the review: IA.
Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present review: IA.
Guarantor for the review (one author): IA.
Persons responsible for reading and checking review before submission: IA, MM, JL, RP.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • none, Other.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Ibtihal S Abdelgadir has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Joanne L Lumsden has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Michael P Moncreiff has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Robert S Phillips has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jane Cracknell, the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG) managing editor, for her help with organization of the developing review, and Karen Hovhannisyan, Trials Search Co‐ordinator of CARG, for his assistance in identifying search terms for this review. We would like to thank Rodrigo Cavallazzi (content editor), Vibeke E Horstmann (Statistical editor), Subrahmanyan Radhakrishna, Aaron Donoghue, Martin Kryspin Sørensen (peer reviewers) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this protocol for the systematic review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 May 24

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates)

Review

Ibtihal S Abdelgadir, Robert S Phillips, Davinder Singh, Michael P Moncreiff, Joanne L Lumsden

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011413.pub2

2014 Dec 05

Video‐laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates)

Protocol

Ibtihal S Abdelgadir, Robert S Phillips, Michael P Moncreiff, Joanne L Lumsden

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011413

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.