Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2020
Comparison of McGrath, Pentax, and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin by novices: a randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03161730 (Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in a Normal and Cervical Immobilized Manikin by Novice), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in a Normal and Cervical Immobilized Manikin by Novice
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare tracheal intubation performance regarding the time to intubation, glottic view, difficulty, and dental click, by novices using McGrath videolaryngoscope (VL), Pentax Airway Scope (AWS) and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin models.
methodsThirty-five anesthesia nurses without previous intubation experience were recruited. Participants performed endotracheal intubation in a manikin model at two simulated neck positions (normal and fixed neck via cervical immobilization), using three different devices three times each. Performance parameters included intubation time, success rate of intubation, Cormack Lehane laryngoscope grading, dental click, and subjective difficulty score.
resultsIntubation time and success rate during first attempt were not significantly different between the 3 groups in normal airway manikin. In the cervical immobilized manikin, the intubation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and the success rate with the first attempt was significantly higher (p < 0.001) when using McGrath VL and Pentax AWS compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. Both VLs showed less difficulty score (p < 0.001) and more Cormack Lehane grade I (p < 0.001) in both scenarios. The incidence of dental clicks was higher with Macintosh laryngoscope compared with McGrath VL in cervical immobilized airway (p < 0.001).
conclusionsMcGrath VL and Pentax AWS did not show clinically significant decrease in intubation time, however, they achieved higher first attempt success rate, easier intubation and better glottis view compared with Macintosh laryngoscope by novices in a cervical immobilized manikin model. McGrath VL may reduce the risk of dental injury compared with Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical immobilized scenario.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161730), May 22, 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/hom.
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.