Skip to main content
. 2024 May 21;24:181. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02560-3

Table 4.

Comparisons of the secondary outcomes (N = 260)

Group Estimatea 95% CI P
Success on two attempts
Bougie first vs. Preloaded bougie 3.00 0.31 to 28.84 0.341
Bougie first vs. ETT with stylet 2.00 0.18 to 22.06 0.571
Bougie first vs. ETT without stylet 10.00 1.28 to 78.12 0.028*
Duration of the first attempt (s)
Bougie first vs. Preloaded bougie 1.62 1.28 to 2. 04 < 0.001*
Bougie first vs. ETT with stylet 0.96 0.64 to 1.44 0.832
Bougie first vs. ETT without stylet 2.09 1.51 to 2.89 < 0.001*
Overall intubation duration (s)
Bougie first vs. Preloaded bougie 1.61 1.28 to 2.01 < 0.001*
Bougie first vs. ETT with stylet 1.04 0.68 to 1.58 0.864
Bougie first vs. ETT without stylet 2.12 1.54 to 2.91 < 0.001*
Self-reported intubation difficulty
Bougie first vs. Preloaded bougie -0.86 -1.57 to -0.15 0.018*
Bougie first vs. ETT with stylet -0.02 -0.72 to 0.69 0.966
Bougie first vs. ETT without stylet -3.18 -3.89 to -2.48 < 0.001*

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ETT, endotracheal tube. aSuccess on two attempts was analyzed by a generalized estimating equation logistic model. Duration of the first attempt and overall intubation duration were analyzed by Cox regression model including a cluster term of residents. Self-reported intubation difficulty was analyzed by a linear mixed-effects model. The estimates were risk ratio for logistic model, hazard ratio for Cox model, and mean difference for linear model. *P < 0.005