Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundVideo laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE
methodsSixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.
resultsThe AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.
conclusionsThe AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.
trial registrationRegistration number: jRCT1030240598 ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422 ) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.
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.