ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
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.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intubation during Uninterrupted Chest Compressions: How Easy?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Risk of bias in published randomised controlled trials.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Thrust on airway research - Exploring the publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Simulation-based airway research: The fast-track recipes?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Comparison of self-assembled video laryngoscope versus McGrath MACIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Videolaryngoscopy for all intubations: Is direct laryngoscopy obsolete?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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The risk of contracting infection while intubating a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive patient can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), video laryngoscope (VL) and aerosol-preventing intubation box. We compared two VLs (C-MAC and King Vision laryngoscope [KVL]) for ease of intubation and time taken to intubate the manikin using an intubation box. Methods: This randomised study involved healthcare workers having experience in using both C-MAC and KVL. After explaining the study and five practice sessions, a total of 63 volunteers were included; 61 participants gave consent and were enroled. The participants were allowed to intubate initially with one VL as per random sequence. Each participant performed three tracheal intubations with each device (C-MAC VL and KVL) on a manikin using an aerosol-prevention box over the head end at the time of intubation. Results: Time taken, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and the number of attempts taken for successful intubation with C-MAC and KVL were comparable in any of the three attempts ( Conclusion: C-MAC and KVL take comparable time for successful intubation under COVID-19 simulation conditions. But C-MAC is more user-friendly.
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.