ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2022
Comparison of C-MAC and McGrathMAC Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Normal Airway by Donned Anaesthesiologists Using an Intubation Box During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective, Randomized Study.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of the C-MAC Versus the McGrath Videolaryngoscope for Adult Endotracheal Intubation in Clinical Patients, Simulated Patients, and Manikin Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on videolaryngoscopy: a cross-sectional before-and-after survey.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIntubation is a highly aerosol-generating procedure. Recent airway management guidelines advocate the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, videolaryngoscope, and "intubation box" while intubating a suspected or infected coronavirus patient. We undertook a study to compare C-MAC videolaryngoscope with McGrath videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation using an intubation box by donned anaesthesiologists.
methodsThe patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups by computer-generated random numbers, depending upon the videolaryngoscope used. In group C, C-MAC videolaryngoscope (n=30) was used, whereas McGrath videolaryngoscope was used in group M (n=30). The primary outcome was the total time required for successful intubation. The secondary outcomes included the number of attempts required, Cormack and Lehane grade, the percentage of glottis opening score, the difficulty faced while using the device, and the user's preference.
resultsThe time to intubation was 57.17 ± 19.98 seconds with C-MAC videolaryngoscope as compared to 57.93 ± 14.92 seconds with McGrath. Both the devices had a good percentage of glottis opening score. Twelve patients in each group were found to have a Cormack and Lehane grade of 1. The time to glottis visualization was more with McGrath than with C-MAC although not significant (23.8 ± 14.03 vs 20.10 ± 10.78 seconds). Both the devices were easy to use.
conclusionsBoth C-MAC and McGrath videolaryngoscopes are equally effective devices for intubation by a donned anaesthesiologist using an intubation box. McGrath with a disposable blade should be preferred for intubation in these conditions.
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.