Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2023
Efficacy of McGRATH®MAC videolaryngoscope blade 1 for tracheal intubation in small children: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for paediatric tracheal intubation: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Appropriate shape of a stylet for tracheal intubation using the McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope in neonates: a randomized crossover simulation study.JA clinical reports · 2025Article
- Roles of evidence synthesis studies and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in pediatric perioperative outcomes research.Journal of anesthesia · 2025Article
- Asystole during laryngoscopy with a videolaryngoscope in a patient with an anticipated difficult airway: A case report.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideolaryngoscopes may not be as effective in small children as they are in older children and in adults. The size 1 blade is commercially available for the McGRATH®MAC videolaryngoscope (Covidien, Medtronic, Tokyo, Japan), but its efficacy in comparison with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade 1 is not known.
aimThe main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of McGrath®MAC blade 1 in comparison with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope blade 1, in children aged less than 24 months.
methodsThirty-eight children aged less than 24 months were randomly allocated to one of two groups, and tracheal intubation was attempted using either a direct laryngoscope with a Macintosh blade 1 or a videolaryngoscope with a McGRATH®MAC blade 1. In another 12 children aged 2-4 years, the same comparisons were made with blade 2. The primary outcome measure was time to tracheal intubation using a size 1 blade.
resultsTracheal intubation took significantly longer with a McGRATH®MAC blade 1 (median (interquartile range): 38.0 (31.8-43.5) s) than with the Macintosh blade 1(27.4 (25.9-29.2) s) (p < 0.0001; median difference (95% CI for the median difference): 10.6 (6.4-14.0) s), mainly due to difficulty in advancing a tube into the trachea. No significant difference was observed for the size 2.
conclusionsIn small children without predicted difficult airways, time to intubate the trachea was significantly longer for a McGRATH®MAC blade 1 than a Macintosh blade 1. CLINICAL
trial registrationjRCT1032220366.
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.