Trial reportPloS one2024
Comparative study of the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope blades and conventional laryngoscopy efficacy during mechanical chest compressions: Insights from a randomized trial with 90 anesthesiologists on objective and subjective parameters.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the Bebé VieScope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and utility of the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope, using the Macintosh-like McGrath™ MAC blade and the hyperangulated McGrath™ MAC Xblade with a conventional Macintosh blade under simulated resuscitation conditions.
methodsA prospective, randomized study under conditions mimicking ongoing chest compressions was conducted with 90 anesthesiologists. Intubation success rates, time-to-vocal cords, time-to-intubate, and time-to-ventilate were measured. Additionally, the study assessed the subjective ratings and the perceived workload using the 'NASA-task-load-index' during the procedure.
resultsThe overall intubation success rate was device dependent 99-100%. The McGrath™ MAC and McGrath™ MAC Xblade showed faster visualization times compared to conventional blades. The MAC blade demonstrated superior performance in time-to-intubate and time-to-ventilate compared to both conventional and MAC Xblades. Despite excellent visualization, the MAC Xblade posed challenges in tube placement, reflected in a prolonged intubation time of >120 seconds in one case. Both MAC and MAC Xblade reduced potential dental injuries and interruptions to chest compressions compared to conventional laryngoscopes. User experience significantly impacted intubation times with conventional laryngoscopes, but this effect was mitigated with videolaryngoscopy. Participants reported lower stress and effort when using videolaryngoscopes, with the MAC blade rated superior in perceived time pressure.
conclusionThe study supports the superiority of videolaryngoscopy with a Macintosh-like blade over conventional laryngoscopy during mechanical chest compressions, particularly for less experienced users. The McGrath™ MAC blade, in particular, offers advantages in intubation time, user-friendliness, and reduced stress. However, the MAC Xblade's challenges during tube placement highlight the need for further clinical validation. Continued research is essential to refine guidelines and improve resuscitation outcomes.
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.