Skip to main content

Table 3 Paired analysis of devices where the mean time to intubation was statistically significantly different (only pairs where adjusted p–values were < 0.05 are shown)

From: Comparison of five video-assisted intubation devices by novice and expert laryngoscopists for use in the aeromedical evacuation environment

Group

 

Dunn’s Test p valuea

Novice group

 NAL ground

 

Airtraqb vs. C-MAC

0.002

Airtraqb vs. GlideScope

0.020

C-MAC vs. AWSb

0.014

 DAL stanchion

 

GlideScope vs. AWSb

0.050

 DAL ground

 

Airtraqb vs. C-MAC

0.027

Airtraqb vs. Coopdech

0.034

C-MAC vs. AWSb

0.003

Coopdech vs. AWSb

0.006

 DAB stanchion

 

C-MAC vs. AWSb

0.002

GlideScope vs. AWSb

0.002

 DAB ground

 

Airtraqb vs. C-MAC

0.020

C-MAC vs. AWSb

<0.001

GlideScope vs. AWSb

0.004

 Expert group

  DAL ground

 

Coopdech vs. AWSb

0.009

  DAB stanchion

 

C-MAC vs. AWSb

0.043

Coopdech vs. AWSb

0.046

  1. NAL Normal airway with lights on, DAL Difficult airway with lights on, DAB Difficult airway with blackout conditions. BH-adjusted p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. aDunn’s Test p value adjusted for false discovery rate using Benjamin-Hochberg (BH) procedure; bThe device with shorter time to intubation in the paired results
Back to article page

Military Medical Research

ISSN: 2054-9369