ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2019
GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial.
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 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Split Type Postman videolaryngoscope: The newer device versus the standard Macintosh laryngoscope in simulated difficult airway - A new hope for difficult intubation scenarios.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Implementation and adherence to a speciality-specific checklist for neurosurgery and its influence on patient safety.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAirway management in patients with cervical spine pathology is challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate GlideScope (GVL) and D blade of C-MAC (CMAC-D) using manual inline axial stabilisation (MIAS) for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine injury/pathology.
methodsThis is a randomised, single-blind, hospital-based study. After obtaining informed consent, 54 patients with cervical spine pathology/injury were grouped into GVL group or CMAC-D group, (
resultsThe mean ± SD of IDS of the CMAC-D and GVL groups were 0.04 ± 0.2 (0.04-0.11) and 0.19 ± 0.40 (0.03-0.34), respectively, (
conclusionBoth GVL and CMAC-D with MIAS are equally efficacious in tracheal intubation in cervical spine injury/pathology patients without other difficult airway management criteria.
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.