ArticleAnaesthesia reports
Universal C-MAC® videolaryngoscope use in adult patients: a single-centre experience.
Article in Anaesthesia reports. 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.
- Airway coach project: development of a machine learning-based model using clinical and ultrasound parameters to support videolaryngoscopy strategy.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Seeing is not enough: why introducer choice matters in hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy.Annals of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Human Factors in Airway Management: Designing Systems for Safer, Team-Based Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universal use of Storz C-MAC® videolaryngoscopes was implemented for adult tracheal intubations in the operating theatres, intensive care unit and emergency department at Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust in 2017. We report data from 1099 intubations from March 2020 to March 2022, collected contemporaneously and anonymously using a smartphone app, representing an estimated 18% of intubations in operating theatres and 30% of intubations in other locations during this period. Intubation success was 100%. The first-pass success rate was 87.3% overall: 87% with a Macintosh videolaryngoscope, 92% with a hyperangulated videolaryngoscope and 81% for users with ≤ 20 previous uses. First-pass success without complications was 87% overall: 87% in operating theatres (836/962), 93% in the emergency department (38/41) and 83% in the intensive care unit (73/88). Complications occurred during 0.6% of intubations: 0/962 in operating theatres and 7/137 in non-theatre locations. The rate of complications was unaltered by blade type (Macintosh 5/994 vs. hyperangulated 2/105, p = 0.14); intubator experience with the device (≤ 20 previous clinical uses 2/260 vs. > 20 previous uses 5/832, p = 0.67) and use of airborne personal protective equipment (PPE 6/683 vs. no-PPE 1/410, p = 0.27). Complication rates increased outside theatres (theatres 0/963 vs. non-theatre 7/136, p < 0.001) and during rapid sequence induction (RSI 6/379 (1.6%) vs. non-RSI 1/720 (0.1%), p = 0.008).
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.