Conflict of Interest Declaration
The following Task Force members and other authors declared an intellectual conflict of interest, and this was acknowledged and managed by the Task Force Chairs and Conflict of Interest Committee: Thomaz Bittencourt Couto, as author of an included primary study (Couto 2020). Management of this conflict included exclusion from risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and evaluation of his own study.
No competing financial interests were declared. The authors declared that they had no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in the review.
CoSTR Citation
Thomaz Bittencourt Couto, Jason Acworth, Leandra Rech, Stephan Katzenschlager, Michelle Myburgh, Barnaby R Scholefield, Allan de Caen on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Pediatric Life Support Task Force. Video Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Pediatric Emergency Intubation: Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations [Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Pediatric Life Support Task Force, SAC Approval Oct 10, 2026; this CoSTR statement is a draft pending public consultation
Background
This Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) was developed using the ILCOR continuous evidence evaluation process {Morley, 2025 #20} . The review protocol was registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD420251081694), and conducted following PRISMA methodology. The systematic review informing this CoSTR was commissioned by the ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force and evaluated video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy for pediatric emergency intubation. All evidence identified was considered by the Task Force and informed the treatment recommendations.
Tracheal intubation is a critical component of resuscitation, allowing oxygenation, ventilation, and protection against tracheal aspiration. However, pediatric tracheal intubation remains challenging because children have lower first-pass success rates and experience more physiologic complications than adults, related to increased susceptibility to desaturation and bradycardia, anatomical airway differences, and limited provider experience.
Although evidence supports the potential superiority of video laryngoscopy during elective pediatric intubation {de Carvalho, 2022 #21}, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal approach during emergency intubation, particularly during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and peri-arrest conditions such as shock and respiratory insufficiency.
The Pediatric Life Support Task Force undertook this review to compare video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy (DL) during pediatric emergency tracheal intubation in non-operative settings. Airway management during pediatric resuscitation presents unique challenges, and first-pass intubation success has been associated with lower rates of severe complications {Sakles, 2013 #22} .
Video laryngoscopy was recommended by both the American Heart Association and the European Resuscitation Council during the COVID-19 pandemic {Edelson, 2020 #23} {Nolan, 2020 #24}, and more recent European Resuscitation Council guidelines continue to support its use by trained providers {Djakow, 2025 #25}. Video laryngoscopy has also been widely adopted in pediatric emergency departments and pediatric intensive care units {Warinton, 2024 #26} {Grunwell, 2017 #27}. However, current ILCOR recommendations do not specifically address the use of video laryngoscopy during pediatric emergency airway management, particularly during pediatric cardiac arrest.
This review was undertaken to evaluate the use of video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy during pediatric cardiac arrest and peri-arrest scenarios and to determine whether the available evidence supports changes to current recommendations.
Review Citation
Couto TB, Acworth J, Rech L, Katzenschlager S, Myburgh M, Scholefield BR, de Caen A, Bansal A, Christoff A, Guerguerian AM, Atkins DL, Ambunda E, Nuthall G, Ong GYK, Kurosawa H, Gray JM, Tijssen JA, del Castillo J, Rossano J, Tiwari LK, Morrison LJ, Kleinman M, Morgan RW, Schexnayder SM, Raymond TT, Topjian A, Nadkarni V. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for pediatric emergency tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resusc Plus. 2026;32:101524. doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2026.101524.
PICOST
The PICOST (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Designs and Timeframe)
Population: Infants and children in any setting (in-hospital or out-of-hospital) requiring emergency intubation, including during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), immediately after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and in peri-arrest situations (severe respiratory failure, shock, or altered mental status). Adults, neonates at birth, and infants in neonatal intensive care units were excluded.
Intervention: Intubation attempt using video laryngoscopy (VL), including any device (e.g., GlideScope, C-MAC, King Vision, McGrath Mac).
Comparator: Intubation attempt using direct laryngoscopy (DL) using standard Macintosh or Miller blades.
Outcomes:
Critical outcomes
First-pass intubation success
Survival to hospital discharge
Severe tracheal intubation-associated events (Cardiac arrest post intubation, esophageal intubation with delayed recognition, emesis with aspiration, hypotension requiring intervention, laryngospasm, malignant hyperthermia, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum)
Successful intubation
Important outcomes
Time to intubation
Number of attempts to achieve successful endotracheal intubation
Desaturation (less than 80% saturation during intubation where the saturation was equal or greater than 95% after pre-oxygenation and without pre-existing cyanotic heart disease)
Study Designs: Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies were eligible for inclusion. Included studies compared video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy in pediatric emergency department, intensive care, and prehospital settings. Non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies were eligible for inclusion.
Unpublished studies (e.g., conference abstracts, trial protocols), evidence from case series publications studies, animal studies , manikin/simulation studies, use of VL as a rescue device, studies involving elective intubations or any intubation performed in the operating room were excluded.
All relevant publications in any language were included as long as there was an English abstract.
Timeframe: Searches were conducted from database inception to May 1, 2026.
Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251081694.
Consensus on Science
Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 17 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. Most studies were conducted in pediatric emergency departments, pediatric intensive care units, and prehospital settings. No studies reported outcomes specific to pediatric cardiac arrest. Most observational studies were judged to have serious risk of bias due to confounding and operator expertise.
First-pass intubation success (critical outcome)
For the critical outcome of first-pass success, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 17 studies {Abid, 2021 #28} {Abid, 2022 #41} {Capone, 2022 #29} {Eisenberg, 2016 #30} {Frascone, 2022 #31} {Ghedina, 2020 #32} {Kaji, 2020 #33}{Khanam, 2024 #34} {Laverriere, 2022 #35} {Miller, 2020 #36} {Miller, 2023 #37} {Pacheco, 2021 #38} {Pallin, 2016 #39} {Serkan, 2021 #40} {Donoghue, 2022 #44} {Couto, 2020 #42} {Giuliano, 2023 #43};including 24,714 patients. Risk of bias was downgraded because the evidence was predominantly derived from observational studies with serious concerns regarding confounding and selection bias. Imprecision was downgraded because multiple contributing studies had confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. There was no downgrade for inconsistency because the direction of effect was consistent across most studies. Video laryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass success compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06–1.16; 76 more successful first-pass intubations per 1,000 patients, 95% CI 41 more to 110 more).
Severe tracheal intubation-associated events (critical outcome)
For the critical outcome of severe tracheal intubation-associated events, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision) from 13 studies {Grunwell, 2017 #27} {Capone, 2022 #29} {Abid, 2022 #41} {Couto, 2020 #42} {Eisenberg, 2016 #30} {Giuliano, 2023 #43} {Kaji, 2020 #33} {Khanam, 2024 #34} {Laverriere, 2022 #35} {Miller, 2020 #36;Miller, 2023 #37} {Pacheco, 2021 #38} {Serkan, 2021 #40} including 31,834 intubation events. Risk of bias was downgraded because the evidence was predominantly derived from observational studies with serious concerns regarding confounding and selection bias. Inconsistency was downgraded because of variability in effect estimates across studies. Indirectness was downgraded because outcome definitions varied substantially between studies. Imprecision was downgraded because multiple contributing studies had confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. Video laryngoscopy was associated with fewer severe tracheal intubation-associated events compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.93; 28 fewer severe tracheal intubation-associated events per 1,000 patients, 95% CI 45 fewer to 8 fewer).
Successful intubation (critical outcome)
For the critical outcome of successful intubation, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 7 studies {Abid, 2022 #41} {Couto, 2020 #42} {Eisenberg, 2016 #30} {Kaji, 2020 #33} {Miller, 2020 #36} {Pacheco, 2021 #38} {Serkan, 2021 #40} including 1,670 patients. Risk of bias was downgraded due to observational study design and confounding. There was no downgrade for inconsistency because effect estimates were consistent across studies with overlapping confidence intervals. Imprecision was downgraded because the pooled estimate included the line of no effect and several contributing studies had confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. There was no significant difference between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99–1.01; 0 fewer successful intubations per 1,000 patients, 95% CI 9 fewer to 9 more).
Survival to hospital discharge (critical outcome)
No studies reported survival to hospital discharge.
Desaturation (important outcome)
For the important outcome of desaturation, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness and imprecision) from 11 non-randomized studies {Donoghue, 2022 #44} {Capone, 2022 #29} {Abid, 2022 #41} {Couto, 2020 #42} {Giuliano, 2023 #43} {Kaji, 2020 #33} {Khanam, 2024 #34} {Laverriere, 2022 #35} {Miller, 2020 #36;Miller, 2023 #37} {Pacheco, 2021 #38} including 22,700 patients. Risk of bias was downgraded due to observational study design. Inconsistency was downgraded because effect estimates varied across studies. Indirectness was downgraded because outcome definitions, including desaturation thresholds, differed between studies. Imprecision was downgraded because the confidence interval included the line of no effect. Video laryngoscopy was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in desaturation compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01; 23 fewer desaturation events per 1,000 patients, 95% CI 44 fewer to 2 more).
Time to intubation (important outcome)
For the important outcome of time to intubation, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision) from one randomized controlled trial and one observational study. Risk of bias was downgraded due to limitations in study design, including the inclusion of observational evidence and some concerns regarding risk of bias in the randomized trial. Inconsistency was downgraded because outcome reporting differed between studies. Imprecision was downgraded because only two studies contributed data.
In one observational study{Donoghue, 2022 #44}, Donoghue et al. reported a median laryngoscopy time of 40 seconds (IQR 28–64) with video laryngoscopy and 34 seconds (IQR 22–49) with direct laryngoscopy.
In one randomized controlled trial intubation {Serkan, 2021 #40}, Serkan et al. reported a median time to intubation of 37.4 seconds (IQR 24.3–60.2) with video laryngoscopy and 29.6 seconds (IQR 18.4–51.2) with direct laryngoscopy.
Because of the small number of studies and heterogeneity in reporting, results were synthesized narratively.
Number of intubation attempts (important outcome)
For the important outcome of number of intubation attempts, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision) from three observational studies {Capone, 2022 #29;Couto, 2020 #42} {Giuliano, 2023 #43}. Risk of bias was downgraded because all contributing studies were observational and susceptible to confounding. Inconsistency was downgraded because studies reported the outcome using different summary measures. Imprecision was downgraded because only three studies contributed data.
In one multicenter observational study, Capone et al. reported a median of one attempt (IQR 1–2) in both emergency department and pediatric intensive care unit settings.
In one prospective study, Couto et al. reported a median of one attempt (range 1–5) for video laryngoscopy and two attempts (range 1–8) for direct laryngoscopy.
In another multicenter observational study, Giuliano et al. reported a median of one attempt (IQR 1–2) in both groups.
Because of heterogeneity in reporting and the absence of comparable effect estimates, the effect of video laryngoscopy on the number of intubation attempts remains uncertain and results were synthesized narratively.
Subgroup analyses
For the pre-specified subgroup analysis evaluating video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during pediatric cardiac arrest, no studies reported outcomes specifically in children undergoing tracheal intubation during cardiac arrest. Therefore, no direct evidence was identified for this population and the planned subgroup analysis could not be performed.
For the pre-specified subgroup analysis comparing infants and older children, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision) from two observational studies {Eisenberg, 2016 #30} {Frascone, 2022 #31}. In one observational study, Eisenberg et al. reported no difference in first-pass success between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy among infants younger than 1 year (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45–1.04) or among children aged 1 year or older (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92–1.19). In another observational study, Frascone et al. reported no difference in first-pass success among infants younger than 1 year (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69–1.89) or among children aged 1 year or older (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53–1.11). Pooled subgroup estimates demonstrated no significant difference in first-pass success among infants younger than 1 year (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.53–1.43) or children aged 1 year or older (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70–1.26), and no subgroup effect according to age was identified (p for interaction = 0.78).
For the pre-specified subgroup analysis according to clinical setting, we identified very low-certainty evidence from studies conducted in pediatric emergency departments, pediatric intensive care units, and prehospital settings.
In pediatric emergency departments, video laryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass success (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05–1.21) and lower rates of desaturation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.98), with no difference in severe tracheal intubation-associated events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62–1.04).
In pediatric intensive care units, video laryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.09) and fewer severe tracheal intubation-associated events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52–0.81), while no clear difference was observed for desaturation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00).
In prehospital settings, we identified very low-certainty evidence from two observational studies. In one study {Abid, 2021 #28}, video laryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass success than direct laryngoscopy (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.99). In another study {Frascone, 2022 #31}, no difference in first-pass success was observed between video and direct laryngoscopy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63–1.16). The pooled estimate demonstrated no clear difference between video and direct laryngoscopy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66–1.95).
No statistically significant subgroup differences according to clinical setting were identified (test for subgroup differences p = 0.24 for first-pass success and p = 0.22 for severe tracheal intubation-associated events).
Treatment Recommendation or Good Practice Statement
We suggest the use of video laryngoscopy rather than direct laryngoscopy when emergency intubation is being performed in infants and children, and where resources and training allow, (weak recommendation, very low-certainty evidence).
We suggest that video laryngoscopy may be considered as part of an advanced airway management strategy while minimizing interruptions to high-quality chest compressions during pediatric cardiac arrest, where resources and training allow, (conditional recommendation, very low-certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights
The Task Force judged this topic to be a priority because tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure and multiple intubation attempts are associated with worse outcomes. Video laryngoscopy has been increasingly adopted across the continuum of pediatric emergency care, including prehospital, emergency department, and pediatric intensive care settings, while current ILCOR recommendations do not specifically address its use, particularly during pediatric cardiac arrest.
The Task Force judged the desirable effects of video laryngoscopy to be moderate. This judgment was based on evidence demonstrating higher first-pass success and fewer severe tracheal intubation-associated adverse events with video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy. The Task Force considered severe tracheal intubation-associated adverse events to be the most clinically relevant measure of harm available from the included studies. Survival and neurological outcomes would represent more important patient-centered outcomes; however, no included studies reported these.
The undesirable effects were judged to be trivial because no evidence demonstrated increased failure rates or increased complications associated with video laryngoscopy.
Overall certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. Most included studies were observational, and only a single small randomized controlled trial was identified.
The Task Force judged that there was possibly important uncertainty or variability in values and preferences. However, higher first-pass success during a high-risk procedure and fewer complications were considered important outcomes for patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals.
The balance of effects was judged to probably favor video laryngoscopy because the observed improvements in first-pass success and adverse events outweighed the anticipated undesirable effects.
The Task Force judged that implementation would require moderate resources because of equipment acquisition and training requirements. None of the included studies reported cost or cost-effectiveness data, and economic outcomes were not the focus of the review. Resource requirements may be particularly relevant in resource-limited settings.
The equity domain was judged to be probably reduced because access to video laryngoscopy is less likely in lower-resource settings, potentially increasing differences in access to advanced airway management.
Acceptability and feasibility were both judged to be probably favorable because video laryngoscopy is already used in many pediatric emergency and intensive care settings.
Taking all EtD domains into consideration, the Task Force concluded that the balance of effects probably favors video laryngoscopy when resources and training are available, supporting a weak recommendation in favor of its use.
Importantly, this recommendation does not alter existing indications for tracheal intubation during pediatric resuscitation. Rather, it evaluates the preferred laryngoscopy technique when a decision has already been made to perform tracheal intubation.
Evidence from prehospital settings was limited and imprecise; recommendations are primarily based on studies performed in emergency department and intensive care environments. However, findings were directionally consistent with the overall analysis, and no signal of harm was identified, thus this population is included in the overall recommendation.
No direct evidence was available for pediatric cardiac arrest populations. Nevertheless, the Task Force considered that the observed improvements in first-pass success and reduction in severe adverse events among critically ill children undergoing emergency intubation were likely applicable to cardiac arrest settings, where minimizing repeated attempts and avoiding interruptions to high-quality chest compressions are important clinical priorities.
Knowledge Gaps
High-quality randomized controlled trials comparing video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy during pediatric emergency tracheal intubation are needed. Where randomized trials are not feasible, high-quality observational studies using rigorous causal inference methods should be conducted. No direct evidence was identified for pediatric cardiac arrest populations, highlighting the need for studies evaluating airway management during resuscitation.
Future research should evaluate survival, neurological, and other patient-centered outcomes, explore age-specific effects across pediatric age groups, and strengthen the evidence base in prehospital settings. Additional studies examining costs, cost-effectiveness, implementation strategies, competency acquisition, procedural supervision, and the educational role of video laryngoscopy are also needed.
Evidence to Decision (EtD) Tables
PLS 4060 02 Evidence to Decision Table EtD_29Oct2026q
Author Contributions
Thomaz Bittencourt Couto served as topic lead and led protocol development, evidence synthesis, systematic review conduct, manuscript drafting, and revision. Jason Acworth, Leandra Rech, Stephan Katzenschlager, Michelle Myburgh, Barnaby R. Scholefield, and Allan de Caen contributed to question development, interpretation of evidence, Evidence-to-Decision discussions, drafting of treatment recommendations, and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors participated in Task Force deliberations, reviewed the final document, and approved the final version for submission and public comment.
The following collaborators of the ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force contributed to the development of this CoSTR: Arun Bansal, Andrea Christoff, Anne-Marie Guerguerian, Dianne L. Atkins, Ester Ambunda, Gabrielle Nuthall, Gene Yong-Kwang Ong, Hiroshi Kurosawa, James M. Gray, Janice A. Tijssen, Jimena del Castillo, Joseph Rossano, Lokesh Kumar Tiwari, Laurie J. Morrison, Monica Kleinman, Ryan W. Morgan, Stephen M. Schexnayder, Tia T. Raymond, Alexis Topjian, and Vinay Nadkarni. Collaborators participated in Task Force meetings, contributed to the interpretation of the evidence and development of the treatment recommendations, provided feedback on draft versions, and approved the final version of the document for public comment. We also acknowledge Lars Eriksson, Outreach Librarian, The University of Queensland, who developed and conducted the search strategy.
References
Abid, E. S., et al. (2022). "Association between the number of endotracheal intubation attempts and rates of adverse events in a paediatric emergency department." Emerg Med J 39(8): 601-607.
Capone, C. A., et al. (2022). "Intubation practice and outcomes among pediatric emergency departments: A report from National Emergency Airway Registry for Children (NEAR4KIDS)." Acad Emerg Med 29(4): 406-414.
Couto, T. B., et al. (2020). "Changing the view: Video versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the pediatric emergency department." Medicine (Baltimore) 99(38): e22289.
Couto TB, Acworth J, Rech L, Katzenschlager S, Myburgh M, Scholefield BR, de Caen A. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for pediatric emergency tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In draft.
de Carvalho, C. C., et al. (2022). "Videolaryngoscopes versus direct laryngoscopes in children: Ranking systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials." Paediatr Anaesth 32(9): 1000-1014.
Djakow, J., et al. (2025). "European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2025 Paediatric Life Support." Resuscitation 215 Suppl 1: 110767.
Donoghue, A., et al. (2022). "Videographic Assessment of Tracheal Intubation Technique in a Network of Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Report by the Videography in Pediatric Resuscitation (VIPER) Collaborative." Ann Emerg Med 79(4): 333-343.
Edelson, D. P., et al. (2020). "Interim Guidance for Basic and Advanced Life Support in Adults, Children, and Neonates With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: From the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Adult and Pediatric Task Forces of the American Heart Association." Circulation 141(25): e933-e943.
Eisenberg, M. A., et al. (2016). "Comparison Between Direct and Video-assisted Laryngoscopy for Intubations in a Pediatric Emergency Department." Acad Emerg Med 23(8): 870-877.
Frascone, R., et al. (2022). "The Use of Video Laryngoscopy Did Not Lead to Greater First-Pass or Overall Success Rates Compared to Direct Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation in a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service." Air Med J 41(2): 243-247.
Ghedina, N., et al. (2020). "Paediatric intubation in Australasian emergency departments: A report from the ANZEDAR." Emerg Med Australas 32(3): 401-408.
Giuliano, J., Jr., et al. (2023). "Implementation of Video Laryngoscope-Assisted Coaching Reduces Adverse Tracheal Intubation-Associated Events in the PICU." Crit Care Med 51(7): 936-947.
Grunwell, J. R., et al. (2017). "Trend and Outcomes of Video Laryngoscope Use Across PICUs." Pediatr Crit Care Med 18(8): 741-749.
Kaji, A. H., et al. (2020). "Video Versus Direct and Augmented Direct Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Tracheal Intubations." Acad Emerg Med 27(5): 394-402.
Khanam, D., et al. (2024). "First-Pass Success of Intubations Using Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy in Children With Limited Neck Mobility." Pediatr Emerg Care 40(6): 454-458.
Laverriere, E. K., et al. (2022). "A prospective observational study of video laryngoscopy-guided coaching in the pediatric intensive care unit." Paediatr Anaesth 32(9): 1015-1023.
Miller, A. G., et al. (2020). "Respiratory Therapist Intubation Practice in Pediatric ICUs: A Multicenter Registry Study." Respir Care 65(10): 1534-1540.
Miller, K. A., et al. (2023). "Video-Assisted Laryngoscopy for Pediatric Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Multicenter Study of Clinical Outcomes." Ann Emerg Med 81(2): 113-122.
Morley, P. T., et al. (2025). "Methodology and Conflict of Interest Management: 2025 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations." Circulation 152(16_suppl_1): S23-S33.
Nolan, J. P., et al. (2020). "European Resuscitation Council COVID-19 guidelines executive summary." Resuscitation 153: 45-55.
Pacheco, G. S., et al. (2021). "Clinical Experience With the C-MAC and GlideScope in a Pediatric Emergency Department Over a 10-Year Period." Pediatr Emerg Care 37(12): e1098-e1103.
Pallin, D. J., et al. (2016). "Techniques and Trends, Success Rates, and Adverse Events in Emergency Department Pediatric Intubations: A Report From the National Emergency Airway Registry." Ann Emerg Med 67(5): 610-615 e611.
Sakles, J. C., et al. (2013). "The importance of first pass success when performing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department." Acad Emerg Med 20(1): 71-78.
Serkan, O., et al. (2021). "Comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video-assisted laryngoscopy in pediatric intensive care unit." Arch Pediatr 28(8): 658-662.
Warinton, E. and Z. Ahmed (2024). "Comparing the effectiveness and safety of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the paediatric emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Front Med (Lausanne) 11: 1373460.