Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29416454›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia

A randomized controlled trial comparing C Mac D Blade and Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing surgeries for head and neck cancer.

Hrishikesh Hazarika, Anudeep Saxena, Pradeep Meshram, Ajay Kumar Bhargava

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05561231 (A Prospective Single Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Endotracheal Intubation Using C Blade and D Blade of CMAC Videolaryngoscope in Patients Undergoing Elective Cervical Spine Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05561231 nacompletednot on this map

A Prospective Single Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Endotracheal Intubation Using C Blade and D Blade of CMAC Videolaryngoscope in Patients Undergoing Elective Cervical Spine Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing Edward Memorial Hospital, MumbaiRan2018 to 2019Enrolled68ConditionsCervical Spine InstabilityArmsIntubation with C blade, Intubation with D blade
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hrishikesh HazarikaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector V, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Anudeep SaxenaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector V, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Pradeep MeshramDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector V, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Ajay Kumar BhargavaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector V, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSeveral devices are available to take care of difficult airway, but C-MAC D-Blade has scant evidence of its use in nasotracheal intubation in a difficult airway scenario. AIMS AND

objectivesWe compared the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope

methodsOne hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged 20-70 years with EGRI score 1-≤7 scheduled for head and neck surgery requiring nasal intubation. ASA IV patients, patients with mouth opening <2.5 cm, patients difficult to mask ventilate, and patients with hyperkalemia and history of malignant hyperthermia were excluded from the study. Primary outcome was time taken to intubation, and secondary outcomes were a number of attempts, glottic view in terms of C/L grade, use of accessory maneuvers, success rate, incidence of trauma, ease of intubation, and hemodynamic changes before and after intubation.

resultsTime required for intubation was less (39.56 ± 15.65 s) in Group C than in Group M (50.34 ± 15.65 s). Cormack-Lehane Grade I and II view were more in C-MAC D-Blade group (

conclusionC-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope

Indexed as

C-Mac D-BladeCormack–LehaneEl-Ganzouri risk indextime to intubation

Identifiers

PMID29416454
PMCPMC5789504
OpenAlexW2784092339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.