ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to improve neonatal and infant intubation success: a meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for paediatric tracheal intubation: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Video vs. direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Video laryngoscopy in neonate and infant intubation-a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Usefulness of C-curved stylet for intubation with the C-MAC® Miller videolaryngoscope in neonates and infants: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Comparison of C-MAC Miller blade video laryngoscope with conventional Miller blade in infants undergoing elective surgery- A prospective randomised 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage a comparative evaluation of C-MAC with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation. Material and Methods: 150 neonates were randomized to undergo intubation with either the C-MAC VL ( Results: C-MAC group demonstrated a significantly higher POGO, compared to the Miller group (88 ± 26.7%;76.8 ± 32.1%, respectively, Conclusion: Despite an improved view of the glottis, the TTI was higher for C-MAC compared to direct laryngoscopy with a comparable first-attempt success rate in the two techniques.
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.