SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for intubation undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnexpected difficult intubation during general anesthesia can significantly increase patient morbidity and mortality. The McGRATH videolaryngoscope is recognized for its ability to enhance laryngeal visibility in patients with both difficult and normal airways. This study aims to compare the efficacy of McGrath videolaryngoscopes and Macintosh laryngoscope in adult patients under general anesthesia, utilizing data from prospective randomized trials.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed across databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Data on the success rate of the first intubation attempt, intubation time, and glottic visualization during tracheal intubation were extracted from the identified studies. The data were analyzed using Stata 15 software. The risk of bias was assessed using the five domains of the Cochrane Collaborations tool.
resultsNineteen articles met our inclusion criteria. The McGrath laryngoscope demonstrated superior glottic visualization compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.89). However, there were no significant differences between the McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in terms of intubation time (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.85) and the success rate of the first intubation attempt (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.07). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of sore throat between the two laryngoscopes (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.42).
conclusionsOur study indicates that the McGrath videolaryngoscope provides superior glottic visualization compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope. Nevertheless, there are no statistically significant differences between the two laryngoscopes regarding first-attempt tracheal intubation success rates and intubation times.
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.