Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26765472›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2016

Comparison of McGrath Series 3 and Macintosh Laryngoscopes for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Normal Airway by Inexperienced Anesthetists: A Randomized Study.

Zi-Jia Liu, Jie Yi, Wen-Juan Guo, Chao Ma, Yu-Guang Huang

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT04850976 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Self-Assembled Modified Macintosh Videolaryngoscope Versus McGrath Macintosh (MAC®) Videolaryngoscope: Which is Better?

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndonesia UniversityRan2020 to 2020Enrolled62ConditionsAirway ManagementArmsEndotracheal intubation
NCT06842082 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Single-blind Study Comparing Direct Laryngoscopy and Videolaryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation Performed by Anesthesia Residents in the Operating Room

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitario Lucus AugustiRan2025 to 2026Enrolled1,008ConditionsIntubation Intratracheal, Airway ManagementArmsIntubation with standard laryngoscope, Intubation with video laryngoscope
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Tooth avulsion accidents due to urgent and emergency orotracheal intubation.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020
    Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zi-Jia LiuFrom the Department of Anesthesia, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medicine Science, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China (Z-JL, JY, W-JG, Y-GH) and Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China (CM).
Jie Yi
Wen-Juan Guo
Chao Ma
Yu-Guang Huang
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Difficult and failed intubations account for the major causes of morbidity and mortality in current anesthetic practice. Several devices including McGrath Series 3 videolaryngoscope are available which may facilitate tracheal intubation by improving view of the larynx compared with Macintosh blade laryngoscopy. But no studies demonstrate whether McGrath Series 3 performs better than Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airway intubations by inexperienced anesthetists so far. We therefore designed this randomized controlled study to compare McGrath with Macintosh in routine tracheal intubation performed by inexperienced anesthetists.In total, 180 adult patients with normal-appearing airways requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to be intubated by 9 inexperienced anesthetists with McGrath or Macintosh. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Ease of intubation was assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale. Intubation attempts/failures, best laryngoscopy view using the Cormack-Lehane grade, associated complications and hemodynamic changes during intubation were recorded.We found that there was no significant difference between McGrath and Macintosh in the median time to intubation (P = 0.46); the Cormack-Lehane views attained using McGrath were superior (P < 0.001); the difference of ease of intubation was statistically significant (P = 0.01). No serious trauma occurred in both groups. And there was statistically significant difference in the systolic blood pressure changes between 2 groups (P < 0.05).We demonstrated that in orotracheal intubation in patients with normal airway by inexperienced anesthetists, McGrath compared with the Macintosh allows superior glottis views, greater ease of intubation, less complications, and hemodynamic changes with noninferior intubation time. And it remained a potential selection for inexperienced anesthetists in uncomplicated intubation.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesAdultAnesthesiologyClinical CompetenceFemaleHemodynamicsHumansIntubation, IntratrachealMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26765472
PMCPMC4718298
OpenAlexW2246901093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.