ArticleCureus2022
Comparison Between McCoy Laryngoscope and C-MAC Video Laryngoscope in Anticipated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study.
Article in Cureus, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Video laryngoscopy may improve the intubation outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the standard McCoy laryngoscope and video-assisted McCoy laryngoscope for laryngoscopy and intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Comparison between C-MAC D-blade video laryngoscope and McCoy laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in traumatic cervical spine surgery - A randomised controlled trial.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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProlonged laryngoscopy and failure to intubate are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Need to improve glottic visualisation and ease of intubation has led to the introduction of various types of laryngoscopes. This study compares the effectiveness of C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) with McCoy laryngoscope in patients with an anticipated difficult airway.
methodsThis prospective randomised single-blinded single-centre study included patients with modified Mallampati grades 3 and 4, divided into two groups I and II of 65 patients each. Group I was intubated using C-MAC and group II with McCoy Laryngoscope. Modified Cormack Lehane grade of visualisation, time to intubate, intubation difficulty scale score and complications were recorded.
resultsC-MAC VL provides a higher proportion of modified Cormack Lehane grade I visualisation (63% vs 35.3, p=0.0017), the lesser median time of intubation in seconds (15 vs 18, p=0.0007) and significantly lesser median intubation difficulty score (0 vs 3) when compared to McCoy.
conclusionsC-MAC VL provided better visualisation of glottis and easier tracheal intubation that too in a significantly lesser time. We conclude and recommend the use of C-MAC VL over McCoy for endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult airways, especially in modified Mallampati grades 3 and 4.
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.