ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy and C-MAC D-Blade video laryngoscope intubation by prehospital emergency health workers: a simulation study.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of cervical spine motion during intubation with a C‑MAC D‑Blade® and an LMA Fastrach®.Der Anaesthesist · 2019Trial
- Assessment of the Possibility of Using the Laryngoscopes Macintosh, McCoy, Miller, Intubrite, VieScope and I-View for Intubation in Simulated Out-of-Hospital Conditions by People without Clinical Experience: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Is video laryngoscopy really superior to direct laryngoscopy for emergency intubation in prehospital trauma patients?Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the this study is to evaluate the intubation success rates of emergency medical technicians using a Macintosh laryngoscope (ML), McCoy laryngoscope (MCL), and C MAC D-Blade (CMDB) video laryngoscope on manikin models with immobilized cervical spines. This randomized crossover study included 40 EMTs with at least 2 years' active service in ambulances. All participating technicians completed intubations in three scenarios-a normal airway model, a rigid cervical collar model, and a manual in-line cervical stabilization model-with three different laryngoscopes. The scenario and laryngoscope model were determined randomly. We recorded the scenario, laryngoscope method, intubation time in seconds, tooth pressure, and intubation on a previously prepared study form. We performed Friedman tests to determine whether there is a significant change in the intubation success rate, duration of tracheal intubation, tooth pressure, and visual analog scale scores due to violations of parametric test assumptions. We performed the Wilcoxon test to determine the significance of pairwise differences for multiple comparisons. An overall 5 % type I error level was used to infer statistical significance. We considered a p value of less than 0.05 statistically significant. The CMDB and MCL success rates were significantly higher than the ML rates in all scenario models (p < 0.05). The CMDB intubation duration was significantly shorter when compared with ML and MCL in all models. CMDB and MCL may provide an easier, faster intubation by prehospital emergency health care workers in patients with immobilized cervical spines.
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.