ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
Comparison of self-assembled video laryngoscope versus McGrath MAC
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for intubation undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Thrust on airway research - Exploring the publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Video laryngoscopy highly improves the success rate for endotracheal intubation. However, commercially available video laryngoscopes such as McGrath MAC Methods: This study enroled 62 adults scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was total intubation time. Secondary outcomes were the time for glottic visualisation (time A), time for tube insertion after glottic visualisation (time B), first-attempt intubation success rate, degree of glottic visualisation, and need for backward, upward, rightward pressure (BURP) assistance, complications, and user satisfaction. The tests used were: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Mann-Whitney test to analyse the data's distribution and the primary outcome, respectively. Results: The median total intubation time in the SAM-VL group versus the McGrath was 63 s (27-114s) versus 74 s (40-133s), respectively ( Conclusion: Endotracheal intubation using self-assembled modified video laryngoscope is faster and allows better glottis visualisation than McGrath MAC
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.