ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2019
Evaluation of performance of C-MAC
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anaesthetic Management of 2 Micropreemies with Difficult Airway: Case Report and Review of Literature.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2022Article
- 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
- A tripartite challenge of orphaned manuscripts, heedless writing and reluctant reviewing...... revamping the editing process!Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching tool for novices performing tracheal intubation results in greater first pass success in neonates and infants.Indian 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 AND
aimsThe preterm and ex-preterm babies form a separate group among the paediatric population with unique airway anatomy. The utility of C-MAC
methodsAfter Institute Ethics Committee approval, a retrospective study was designed to evaluate the performance of C-MAC
resultsData of 37 preterm and ex-preterm babies were analysed. The mean age and weight at the time of surgery were 40.5 (±4.9) weeks and 2532 (±879) grams respectively. The median TTGV and TTI were 11.0 and 22.0 seconds. A total of 32 babies (86.5%) were intubated on initial attempt and five were intubated on second attempt. Stylet was used to facilitate intubation in all infants. There was no incidence of desaturation, mucosal injury or bleeding.
conclusionC-MAC video laryngoscope Miller blade size 0 is suitable for endotracheal intubation in preterm and ex-preterm infants.
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.