ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07255235 (Comparative Evaluation of C-Mac, Pentax Video Laryngoscopes, and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Endotracheal Intubation in Intensive Care Unit Wearing a Face Shield.), which is not on this 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.
Comparative Evaluation of C-Mac, Pentax Video Laryngoscopes, and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Endotracheal Intubation in Intensive Care Unit Wearing a Face Shield.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of the C-MAC Versus the McGrath Videolaryngoscope for Adult Endotracheal Intubation in Clinical Patients, Simulated Patients, and Manikin Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison between C-MAC and King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) for tracheal intubation in aerosol-prevention intubation box for COVID-19 patients: A manikin-based study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. METHODOLOGY: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over.
resultsThe mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s,
conclusionThe time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin.
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.