To the Editor,In a randomized crossover trial on a mannequin simulating cardiac arrest, Shin et al. 1 showed that tracheal intubation, during chest compressions under conditions of both normal and difficult airways, was more successful with either the Pentax-AWS Ò or the GlideScope Ò videolaryngoscope (97-100% success rate) than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (75-97% success rate). However, apart from the limitations described in the Discussion section of their manuscript, we note one issue in this study which may confound interpretation of the results.In this study, the participants were inexperienced junior interns who were given a standardized 20-min training session on each of the devices before the study. The authors ignored an important issue, namely, a different learning curve is required for each of the three devices. NouruziSedeh et al. 2 showed that untrained personnel required only five tracheal intubation attempts to achieve proficiency with the GlideScope Ò in patients with a normal airway. Also, Hirabayashi 3 found that a short demonstration of the Pentax-AWS Ò and a brief practice with a mannequin were the only requirements needed to perform a tracheal intubation with the device. However, in the studies of Mulcaster et al. 4 and Konrad et al., 5 novice anesthesia residents or non-anesthesia trainees required 47-56 tracheal intubations to achieve a tracheal intubation success rate of C 90% using direct laryngoscopy. These findings suggest that less training is required to achieve proficiency with the Pentax-AWS Ò and the GlideScope Ò than with the direct laryngoscope. Furthermore, when the Pentax-AWS Ò was compared with the GlideScope Ò in both simulated normal and difficult airway scenarios, novice operators found it easier to intubate the trachea with the Pentax-AWS Ò . 6 Thus, in Shin et al.'s study, 1 identical training times for the three devices may have biased both the time required for tracheal intubation and the success rate in favour of the two videolaryngoscopes, especially for the difficult airway scenario. To be precise, the differences in the performance of the three laryngoscopes may be attributed to their different learning curves. The findings of Kim et al. support this view. 7 They studied emergency physicians-who had performed [ 50 tracheal intubations with the direct laryngoscopy on a mannequin simulating cardiac arrest-after the physicians had received only a one-hour training session with the GlideScope Ò and the Pentax-AWS Ò , and they found no significant differences between the Macintosh laryngoscope, the Pentax-AWS Ò , and the GlideScope Ò in terms of intubation time during chest compression. The different learning curves might explain the inconsistent results between studies on a mannequin simulating cardiac arrest.