Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022
Comparing the first-attempt tracheal intubation success of the hyperangulated McGrath® X-blade vs the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope in patients with cervical immobilization: a two-centre randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07223762 (Hyperangulated Versus Standard Geometry Laryngoscope Blade Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Hyperangulated Versus Standard Geometry Laryngoscope Blade Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of the head-elevated position on cervical spine motion during videolaryngoscopic intubation with manual in-line stabilization: a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Trial
- A novel technique of handling the blade for videolaryngoscopy intubation in patients with a semi-rigid neck collar: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- GlideRite® rigid stylet vs Flex-it® articulated stylet for intubation with videolaryngoscopy in patients with semi-rigid cervical collar: a randomized trial.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Application of high-flow nasal oxygen during anesthesia induction for frame-based stereoelectroencephalography: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Video screen visualization patterns when using a video laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the hyperangulated McGrath X-blade with the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope through the use of manual in-line stabilization on patients. The primary hypothesis was that the McGrath X-blade has a similar first-attempt success rate as the CMAC videolaryngoscope. 210 patients of ASA physical status I to III, aged 21 to 80 years old, undergoing general anesthesia requiring tracheal intubation were prospectively recruited into this two-centre randomized controlled trial, from June 2016 to April 2019. Patients with history of or predicted difficult airway, pre-existing dental risks, BMI > 35 kg/m
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.