An interventional study of Arduino-based real-time feedback laryngoscope and Structured airway-management course in Endotracheal Intubation, Medical Education and Simulation Training, sponsored by Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH). Completed at 1 site in Taiwan. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-10.
Sponsored by Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH) · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This study evaluated whether an Arduino-based device that provides real-time pressure and time feedback during manikin practice improves endotracheal intubation training for sixth-year medical students. Small teaching groups of three to four students were allocated by lot to practice either with a feedback-equipped manikin or with a standard manikin, within the same structured airway-management course. Upper-incisor loading during laryngoscopy, learner-reported autonomy, competence, intubation self-efficacy, and course satisfaction were measured before and after training, and intubation success was recorded during subsequent operating-room practice.
Single-center, two-arm, cluster-randomized controlled pretest-posttest study conducted during the 2022-2023 academic year at Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. The unit of allocation was the small teaching group (three to four students), assigned before each session by a physical chance-based procedure (lot drawing or coin toss).
Both arms received the same curriculum: a concept map of airway management, direct teaching and demonstration of airway adjuncts, bag-mask ventilation, and endotracheal intubation, followed by coached manikin practice with reflection and reattempts.
In the experimental arm, a pressure-sensing element at the tooth end of a standard laryngoscope blade transmitted signals to an Arduino-based display that showed a unitless upper-incisor pressure score and elapsed intubation time after each attempt, with an audible alarm above a preset pressure threshold. The control arm practiced on a standard manikin with usual instructor observation and verbal feedback.
The study was registered retrospectively after completion.
Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH) is the lead sponsor of 38 studies on the registry; 12 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
* Students unwilling to participate
Structured airway-management course with coached manikin practice using the Arduino-based real-time pressure and time feedback laryngoscope (40 students).
Device: Arduino-based real-time feedback laryngoscope · Behavioral: Structured airway-management course
Same structured airway-management course with coached practice on a standard manikin and usual instructor observation and verbal feedback, without device-generated scores (40 students).
Behavioral: Structured airway-management course
Standard laryngoscope blade fitted with a pressure-sensing element at the tooth end, connected to an Arduino-based display that shows a unitless upper-incisor pressure score and elapsed intubation time after each manikin intubation attempt, with an audible alarm when sensed pressure exceeds a preset threshold. Used during coached manikin practice within the structured airway-management course.
Course-opening concept map of airway management, direct teaching and demonstration of oral and nasal airways, bag-mask ventilation, and endotracheal intubation, followed by coached practice on an airway manikin with instructor feedback, reflection, and reattempts. Delivered identically to both arms.
Upper-incisor pressure score
Unitless score generated by the pressure-sensing laryngoscope during a manikin intubation attempt; higher scores indicate less loading of the upper incisors. The posttest score is compared between arms with adjustment for the pretest score.
Time frame: Before training (pretest) and immediately after training (posttest), within the same teaching session
Autonomy
Four-item learner-reported scale with 5-point responses (1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree); total score range 4-20, higher scores indicate greater perceived autonomy.
Time frame: Before training (pretest) and immediately after training (posttest), within the same teaching session
Competence
Four-item learner-reported scale with 5-point responses; total score range 4-20, higher scores indicate greater perceived competence.
Time frame: Before training (pretest) and immediately after training (posttest), within the same teaching session
Intubation self-efficacy
Seven-item learner-reported scale with 5-point responses; total score range 7-35, higher scores indicate greater intubation self-efficacy.
Time frame: Before training (pretest) and immediately after training (posttest), within the same teaching session
Course satisfaction
Mean score of three postcourse items with 5-point responses; range 1-5, higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.
Time frame: Immediately after training
Operating-room intubation success
Proportion of successful endotracheal intubation attempts on patients in the operating room, with two to four scored attempts (success or failure) per student.
Time frame: During the clinical anesthesiology rotation following training
Plan to share: No — De-identified data are available from the principal investigator on reasonable request, subject to institutional and ethics requirements.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH)