Trial reportBMJ open2022
Influence of videolaryngoscopy using McGrath Mac on the need for a helper to perform intubation during general anaesthesia: a multicentre randomised video-no-video trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02926144 (Can the Use of the McGRATH® MAC Videolaryngoscope Decrease the Number of People Required for Tracheal Intubation in a Population of Patients Without Predicted Difficult Intubation?), 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.
Can the Use of the McGRATH® MAC Videolaryngoscope Decrease the Number of People Required for Tracheal Intubation in a Population of Patients Without Predicted Difficult Intubation?
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPEBMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe hypothesised that videolaryngoscopy modifies practice of tracheal intubation.
designRandomised single-blinded study (video and no-video groups).
settingThree institutions: one academic, one non-profit and one profit.
participantsPatients >18 years, requiring orotracheal intubation, without predicted difficult intubation. Non-inclusion criterion was patients requiring a rapid-sequence intubation. 300 patients were included, 271 randomised, 256 analysed: 123 in the no-video and 133 in the video groups.
interventionTracheal intubation using a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope, the sequence being video recorded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of intubations where assistance is necessary on request of the operator. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables (intubation difficulty scale and its components, percentage of glottic opening score, oesophageal Intubation, duration of intubation, removal of the screen cover in the no-video group, global evaluation of the ease of intubation, bispectral index, heart rate and blood pressure), intraoperative and postoperative complications (hoarseness or sore throat) and cooperation of the anaesthesiology team.
resultsRequirement for assistance was not decreased in the Video group: 36.1% (95% CI 27.9 to 44.9) vs 45.5% (95% CI 36.5 to 54.7) in the no-video group, p=0.74; OR: 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) and absolute risk: 0.10 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.22). Intubation difficulty scale was similar in both groups (p=0.05). Percentage of glottic opening score was better in the Video group (median of 100 (95% CI (100 to 100) and 80 (95%CI (80 to 90) in the no-video group; p<0.001) as Cormack and Lehane grade (p=0001). Ease of intubation was considered better in the video group (p<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Screen cover was removed in 7.3% (95% CI (2.7 to 11.9)) of the cases in the video group. No serious adverse event occurred. Communication and behaviour within the anaesthesia team were appropriate in all cases.
conclusionIn patients without predicted difficult intubation, videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the requirement for assistance to perform intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02926144; Results.
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.