ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A randomized controlled trial comparing McGRATH series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for intubation undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Airway management of patients undergoing oral cancer surgery: It is time to replace conventional Macintosh with videolaryngoscopes.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of McGRATH series 5 videolaryngoscope (VL) with Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation (NTI) in patients without anticipated difficult airways undergoing head and neck cancer surgeries. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe randomized 60 adult patients for NTI by experienced anesthetists with either Macintosh laryngoscope or McGRATH series 5 VL (VL group). The primary objective was to compare time taken for intubation (TTI). The secondary objectives included success rates, number of attempts, need for optimization maneuvers, Cormack and Lehane (CL) grade, and percentage of difficult intubations.
resultsThe mean TTI in the VL group was 43 (±10.6) versus 75 (±38.0) s in the Macintosh group (99% CI: 12.5; -51.6 s;
conclusionThe McGRATH series 5 VL has faster TTI, better glottic visualization, and less need for optimization maneuvers than the Macintosh laryngoscope for NTI in patients with unanticipated difficult airways, when performed by experienced anesthetists.
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.