Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
The C-MAC video laryngoscope helps presbyopic anesthetists to overcome difficulty in neonatal and infantile intubation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to improve neonatal and infant intubation success: a meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Intubation during Uninterrupted Chest Compressions: How Easy?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndotracheal intubation (ETI) is a life-saving procedure that must be accurately carried on to guard against complications. Presbyopia leads to difficulty in viewing close objects and may obstacle proper intubation even with the best hands. PURPOSE: This study supposed that the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) may provide better intubation conditions for presbyopic anesthetists and targets to evaluate the neonates and infants' intubation success rates (ISR) by anesthetists aged ≥ 45 years using the C-MAC VL compared to the standard laryngoscope (SL).
methodsThirty-one neonates with an age of 18.2 ± 5.2 days and a body weight of 4.5 ± 0.3 kg and 103 infants aged 8.6 ± 1 months and weighing 9.4 ± 1.5 kg were randomly categorized into the SL group that received ETI using the SL and the VL group had intubated using the C-MAC
resultsThe ISR was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with significantly (P = 0.0037) lower frequency of using assistance maneuvers with VL. The mean score of the anesthetist's difficulty rating was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with SL (2.7 ± 2) than with VL (1.27 ± 1.27). Times for the full intubation process were significantly (P < 0.001) shorter with VL than SL. The 1st attempt success rate was significantly (P = 0.0195) higher with VL than SL (86.6% vs. 67.2%). The frequency of maneuver-related complications was insignificantly (P = 0.116) reduced with the use of VL (4.5%) than with SL (12%). The ISR showed a negative significant correlation (r=-0.973, P = 0.005) with the anesthetist's age.
conclusionNeonatal and infantile intubation using VL is feasible and easy to handle by aged anesthetists and allows higher ISR and 1st attempt rate with minimal need for external assistant maneuvers and maneuver-related complications. VL might be more appropriate for the presbyopic pediatric anesthetists than the SL. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study are the small sample size of anesthetists and the use of one type of VLs.
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.