ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope in Tracheal Intubation: An Updated Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for intubation undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Hyper-angulated (Glidescope) versus intermediate-angled (UED-A) videolaryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in adults: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPEBMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of laryngoscopes for successful intubation in difficult adult airways: A systematic review.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: In the last few years, many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared direct Macintosh laryngoscopy with McGrath videolaryngoscopy in order to assess the potential benefits of the latter; the results were sometimes controversial. (2) Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify our articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria: to be included, each study had to be a prospective randomized trial or comparison between the McGrath videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in an adult population. We did not include manikin trials or studies involving double-lumen tubes. (3) Results: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria necessary. In total, 655 patients were intubated with the McGrath and 629 with the Macintosh. In total, 1268 of 1284 patients were successfully intubated, showing equivalent results for the two devices: 648 of 655 patients with the McGrath videolaryngoscope and 620 of 629 patients with the Macintosh laryngoscope. No differences were noted in terms of hemodynamic changes or the incidence of adverse events. (4) Conclusions: We can assert that the McGrath videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope, even if with equivalent tracheal intubation results, supplement each other.
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.