ArticleCureus2026
First-Attempt Intubation Success Rate Using the C-MAC Videolaryngoscope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy Among Anaesthesiology Residents Performing Rapid Sequence Induction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe primary objective of this randomised trial was to compare the first-attempt intubation success rate between the C-MAC videolaryngoscope (VL) and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) when used by novice anaesthesia residents during rapid sequence induction (RSI). Secondary objectives were to compare intubation time; laryngoscopic view (Cormack-Lehane grade (CLG) and Percentage of Glottic Opening (POGO) score); the need for adjunct manoeuvres and devices (optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM), release of cricoid pressure, and use of a gum elastic bougie (GEB)); and the incidence of hypoxia, regurgitation, mucosal or dental injury, and haemodynamic changes during and after intubation.
methodsThis randomised controlled trial included 172 adult patients with normal airways requiring RSI, who were allocated to either the VL group (n = 86) or the DL group (n = 86). Resident anaesthesiologists underwent lecture- and simulation-based training prior to performing intubations in the operating room. RSI and tracheal intubation were performed using the allocated device. The primary endpoint was first-attempt intubation success. Secondary endpoints included intubation time, manoeuvres required for successful intubation, incidence of hypoxia and regurgitation, mucosal or dental injury, and haemodynamic changes during and after intubation.
resultsFirst-attempt intubation success was significantly higher in the VL group compared with the DL group (93% vs 67%, P < 0.001). A CLG 1 view was obtained in 76% of patients in the VL group and 54% in the DL group (P < 0.001). External laryngeal manipulation, release of cricoid pressure, use of a GEB, and dental injuries were significantly lower in the VL group (P < 0.001). Heart rate and systolic blood pressure increased significantly during DL-guided intubation.
conclusionVL-guided intubation by novice anaesthesia residents during RSI was associated with a higher first-attempt success rate and superior laryngoscopic views compared with DL, along with fewer adjunct manoeuvres and airway injuries. These findings support the use of VL as a valuable tool for resident-performed RSI in patients without anticipated difficult airways.
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.