ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparative evaluation of C-MAC and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopes with Macintosh direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries.
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 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.
- AI-assisted videolaryngoscopy improves intubation success: results from a randomized simulation trial.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Trial
- 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
- 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
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Videolaryngoscopes have an undisputed role in difficult airway management, but their role in routine intubation scenarios remains underappreciated. McGrath MAC is a lightweight laryngoscope with a disposable blade. It remains to be proven if it performs as efficiently as the reusable videolaryngoscopes like C-MAC and whether it has an advantage over standard Macintosh laryngoscope in predicted normal airways. Material and Methods: We recruited 180 adult patients and randomly divided them into three groups for intubation with either Macintosh laryngoscope (Group-A), C-MAC (Group-B), and McGrath (Group-C). The primary objective was to compare the first attempt success rate. Secondary objectives included Cormack-Lehane (CL) grades, laryngoscopy time, intubation time, ease of intubation, need for optimization manoeuver, and the number of passes to place the endotracheal tube. Results: The two videolaryngoscopes provided a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope ( Conclusion: Videolaryngoscopes provided a superior glottic view and resulted in a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. When comparing the two videolaryngoscopes, C-MAC resulted in better intubation characteristics (shorter intubation time, better glottic views, and higher first-attempt success rates) and should be preferred over McGrath for intubation in adult patients with normal airways.
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.