Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2015
The C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with conventional laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation at the emergency department: study protocol.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02297113 (The C-MAC Videolaryngoscope Compared With Conventional Laryngoscopy for Rapid Sequence Intubation at the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The C-MAC Videolaryngoscope Compared With Conventional Laryngoscopy for Rapid Sequence Intubation at the Emergency Department
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Inpatient Emergency Intubation in Adults.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEspecially in the emergency setting, rapid and successful airway management is of major importance. Conventional endotracheal intubation is challenging and requires high level of individual skills and experience. Videolaryngoscopes like the C-MAC are likely to offer better glottis visualization and serve as alternatives to conventional endotracheal intubation. The aim of this study is to compare clinical performance and feasibility of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared to conventional endotracheal intubation in the emergency setting. METHODS/
designThis study is designed as a prospective, patient-blinded, mono-center, randomized cohort study. This study will be performed at the Emergency Department of the University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. All patients transferred to the Emergency Department and requiring emergent endotracheal intubation will be screened. Successful intubation with first intubation attempt will serve as the primary outcome. Time to intubation, intubation attempts, Cormack & Lehane Score, ease of intubation, complications, necessity of using alternate intubation device, maximum drop of saturation, and potential technical problems serve as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In the clinical setting, the ultimate success rate of endotracheal intubation ranges between 97% and 99%. Unexpected difficulties during laryngoscopy and poor glottis visualization occur in up to 9% of all cases. In these cases, videolaryngoscopes may increase success rate of initial intubation attempt and thereby patient safety.
trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02297113 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.