ArticleBioMed research international2020
Comparison of Direct and Video Laryngoscopes during Different Airway Scenarios Performed by Experienced Paramedics: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct versus indirect epiglottis elevation in cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation under manual in-line stabilization: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Novel airway device Vie Scope in several pediatric airway scenario: A randomized simulation pilot trial.Medicine · 2020Trial
- Comparison study of LANJA, UE, and VDO video laryngoscopes for simulated endotracheal intubation in beginners.Medicine · 2025Article
- The Use of McGrath MAC Video Laryngoscope Versus McCoy Laryngoscope in Adults with Anticipated Difficult Airway Undergoing Elective Surgery.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the study was to compare Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD in 5 separate airway management scenarios.
methodsThis prospective cross-over simulation study involved 93 paramedics. All paramedics performed intubation using direct laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD video laryngoscopes. The study was performed in 5 different scenarios: (A) normal airway, (B) tongue oedema, (C) pharyngeal obstruction, (D) cervical collar stabilization with tongue oedema, and (E) cervical collar stabilization with pharyngeal obstruction.
resultsIn scenario A, the success rate was 99% with MAC, 100% with McGrath, and 94% with PCD. Intubation time was 17 s (IQR: 16-21) for MAC, 18 s (IQR: 16-21) for McGrath, and 27 s (IQR: 23-34) for PCD. In scenario B, the success rate was 61% with MAC, 97% with McGrath, and 97% with PCD (
conclusionsThe McGrath video laryngoscope proved better than Truview PCD and direct intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of success rate, duration of first intubation attempt, number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottis opening (POGO score), number of optimization manoeuvres, severity of dental compression, and ease of use.
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.