Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23475442›Full record

Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2013

Clinical evaluation of C-MAC videolaryngoscope with or without use of stylet for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization.

Nidhi Gupta, Girija Prasad Rath, Hemanshu Prabhakar

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Comparing performance of video and direct laryngoscopy for pre-hospital intubation.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nidhi GuptaDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology, Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, 110029, India.
Girija Prasad Rath
Hemanshu Prabhakar
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study was carried out to evaluate the relative efficacy of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope as compared to the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope using both styletted and non-styletted endotracheal tube (ETT) in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with head and neck stabilized by manual in-line stabilization.

methodsWe randomized 120 consenting adults into four groups (30 each) to undergo tracheal intubation using either the Macintosh laryngoscope or C-MAC videolaryngoscope with styletted and non-styletted ETT.

resultsThere was no significant difference between the C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS) score using either styletted [median (IQR) 2 (1, 3) vs. 3 (2, 4); p = 0.58] or non-styletted ETT [median (IQR) 4 (2, 6) vs. 3 (2, 8); p = 1.00]. Similarly, when using a similar ETT-stylet assembly, the duration of successful intubation attempt, first attempt success rate, complications, use of airway optimization maneuvers, and adjuncts to facilitate intubation were comparable. The Cormack-Lehane view of the glottis was better with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope (p < 0.001). The use of stylet significantly reduced the IDS score [median (IQR) 2 (1, 3) vs. 4 (2, 6); p = 0.02], intubation time [median (IQR) 27 s (23, 31) vs. 52 s (28, 76); p < 0.001], and use of gum elastic bougie (3.3% vs. 43.3%, p < 0.001) with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope whereas no such effect was observed with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

conclusionsUse of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope resulted in similar levels of intubation difficulty during cervical immobilization when used with a similar ETT-stylet assembly. The inclusion of the stylet significantly reduced the intubation difficulty experienced with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesAdultCervical VertebraeElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleGlottisHumansImmobilizationIntubation, IntratrachealMaleVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID23475442
OpenAlexW2074995011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.