Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29191160›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2017

The usefulness of the McGrath MAC laryngoscope in comparison with Airwayscope and Macintosh laryngoscope during routine nasotracheal intubation: a randomaized controlled trial.

Aiji Sato Boku, Kazuya Sobue, Eisuke Kako, Naoko Tachi, Yoko Okumura, Mayuko Kanazawa, Mayumi Hashimoto, Jun Harada

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. GlideScopeSaudi journal of anaesthesia
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aiji Sato BokuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 464-8651, Japan. bokuaiji@dpc.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0182-2543
Kazuya SobueDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan.
Eisuke KakoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan.
Naoko TachiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 464-8651, Japan.
Yoko OkumuraDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 464-8651, Japan.
Mayuko KanazawaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 464-8651, Japan.
Mayumi HashimotoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 464-8651, Japan.
Jun HaradaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan.
Aichi Gakuin University · JPNagoya City University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMcGrath MAC video laryngoscope offers excellent laryngosopic views and increases the success rate of orotracheal intubation in some cases. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of McGrath MAC for routine nasotracheal intubation by comparing McGrath MAC with Airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope.

methodsA total of 60 adult patients with ASA physical status class 1 or 2, aged 20-70 years were enrolled in this study. Patients were scheduled for elective oral surgery under general anesthesia with nasotracheal intubation. Exclusion criteria included lack of consent and expected difficult airway. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups: McGrath MAC (n = 20), Airway scope (n = 20), and Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 20). After induction, nasotracheal intubation was performed by six expert anesthesiologists with more than 6 years of experience.

resultsThere were no significant differences in preoperative airway assessment among the three groups. Successful tracheal intubation time was 26.8 ± 5.7 (mean ± standard deviation) s for McGrath MAC, 36.4 ± 11.0 s for Airway scope, and 36.5 ± 8.9 s for Macintosh laryngoscope groups. The time for successful tracheal intubation for McGrath MAC group was significantly shorter than that for Airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.01). McGrath MAC significantly improved the Cormack Lehane grade for nasotracheal intubation compared with Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.05).

conclusionMcGrath MAC significantly facilitates routine nasotracheal intubation compared with Airwayscope and Macintosh laryngoscope by shortening the tracheal intubation time and improving the Cormack Lehane grade.

trial registrationUMINCTR Registration number UMIN000023506 . Registered 5 Aug 2016.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesAdultAgedAnesthesia, GeneralEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedAirway scopeCormack Lehane gradeIntubation timeMcGrathNasotracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID29191160
PMCPMC5710015
OpenAlexW2775149829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.