Summary of findings for the main comparison. Intubation with FIS versus videolaryngoscope for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia.
| Intubation with FIS versus videolaryngoscope for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia | ||||||
| Patient or population: obese patients requiring general anaesthesia Settings: Intervention: intubation with FIS versus videolaryngoscope | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Intubation with FIS versus videolaryngoscope | |||||
| Change of intubation method | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 131 (3) | See comment | Results from all studies were inconclusive and consistent with an increased or decreased risk of change of device in the FIS group1 |
| Patients with episodes of desaturation | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 121 (2) | See comment | Results from all studies were inconclusive and consistent with an increased or decreased risk of hypoxia in the FIS group1 |
| Bleeding during/after intubation | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 131 (3) | See comment | Results from all studies were inconclusive and consistent with an increased or decreased risk of bleeding in the FIS group1 |
| Sore throat | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 85 (2) | See comment | Results from all studies were inconclusive and consistent with an increased or decreased risk of sore throat in the FIS group |
| Successful first intubation | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 131 (3) | See comment | Results from all studies were inconclusive and consistent with an increased or decreased risk of successful first attempt in the FIS group |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Because of substantial differences in study design, these studies were not suitable for data synthesis.