ArticleAnesthesiology research and practice2016
Comparison of the Success of Two Techniques for the Endotracheal Intubation with C-MAC Video Laryngoscope Miller Blade in Children: A Prospective Randomized Study.
Article in Anesthesiology research and practice, 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 5 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.
Intubation Success and Glottis Visualization With King Vision Video Laryngoscope as Compared to Conventional Laryngoscopes in Children < 1 Years: A Randomized Control Trial
Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Elective Airway Management in Pediatrics Anesthesia, Comparison of Out-comes
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation in Pediatric Patients.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2023Article
- Video screen visualization patterns when using a video laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Review
- The Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Airways Management for Congenital Heart Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2020Article
- Evaluation of performance of C-MACIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Ease of endotracheal intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope (VLS) with Miller blades 0 and 1 has not been evaluated in children. Methods. Sixty children weighing 3-15 kg with normal airway were randomly divided into two groups. Intubation was done with C-MAC VLS Miller blade using either nonstyletted endotracheal tube (ETT) (group WS) or styletted ETT (group S). The time for intubation and total procedure, intubation attempts, failed intubation, blade repositioning or external laryngeal maneuver, and complications were recorded. Results. The median (minimum/maximum) time for intubation in group WS and group S was 19.5 (9/48) seconds and 13.0 (18/55) seconds, respectively (p = 0.03). The median (minimum/maximum) time for procedure in group WS was 30.5 (18/72) seconds and in group S was 24.5 (14/67) seconds, respectively (p = 0.02). Intubation in first attempt was done in 28 children in group WS and in 30 children in group S. Repositioning was required in 14 children in group WS and in 7 children in group S (p = 0.06). There were no failure to intubate, desaturation, and bradycardia in both groups. Conclusion. Styletted ETT significantly reduces time for intubation and time for procedure in comparison to nonstyletted ETT.
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.