ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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 Mac and HugeMed Video Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients Under 3 Years Old-A Prospective Randomized Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of tube and equipment choice in nasotracheal intubation: Protocol for a scoping review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Articulating Video Stylet Compared to Other Techniques for Endotracheal Intubation in Normal Airways: A Simulation Study in Consultants with No Prior Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, it was shown that the routine use of McGrath videolaryngoscopy may improve intubation success rates. The benefits to using a videolaryngoscope in nasotracheal intubation were also demonstrated. However, no solid evidence concerning the effectiveness of the use of McGrath videolaryngoscopes in nasotracheal intubation has previously been reported. As a result, we questioned whether, in adult patients who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgeries with nasotracheal intubation (P), the use of a McGrath videolaryngoscope (I) compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope (C) could reduce the intubation time, improve glottis visualization to a score of classification 1 in the Cormack-Lehane classification system, and improve the first-attempt success rate (O). The secondary outcomes measured were the rate of the use of Magill forceps and the external laryngeal pressure (BURP) maneuver used.
methodsAn extensive literature search was conducted using databases. Only randomized controlled trials that compared the McGrath videolaryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscopy techniques in nasotracheal intubation in adult patients were included.
resultsFive articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis (
conclusionsOur analysis suggests that the use of a McGrath videolaryngoscope in nasotracheal intubation resulted in shorter intubation times, improved views of the glottis and similar first-success rates in adult patients who received general anesthesia for dental, oral, maxillofacial, or head and neck cancer surgery, and also reduced the use of Magill forceps and the BURP maneuver.
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.