evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Comparing the first-attempt tracheal intubation success of the hyperangulated McGrath® X-blade vs the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope in patients with cervical immobilization: a two-centre randomized controlled trial

Zhang 2021 · Zhang Jinbin, Tan Leng Zoo, Toh Han, et al. · Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing · 2021

Included by

Comparison of the Effectiveness of the C-MAC Versus the McGrath Videolaryngoscope for Adult Endotracheal Intubation in Clinical Patients, Simulated Patients, and Manikin Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Zhang 2021 · Table 1; Table 3; Results 3.6
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
First-pass intubation success
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
OR 0.89 [0.45, 1.78]3 studies · 530 participantsGRADE not reported
Time to intubation
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
MD 9.59 [-1.35, 20.52]6 studies · 780 participantsVery low
First-pass intubation success
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
OR 0.54 [0.36, 0.82]6 studies · 780 participantsGRADE not reported
Time to intubation
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
MD 14.12 [10.10, 18.14]4 studies · 330 participantsGRADE not reported
Time to intubation
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
MD 14.29 [3.81, 24.76]4 studies · 330 participantsGRADE not reported
First-pass intubation success
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
OR 0.54 [0.29, 1.01]6 studies · 780 participantsLow
Time to intubation
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
MD 7.40 [4.54, 10.26]6 studies · 780 participantsGRADE not reported
First-pass intubation success
McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope
OR 0.83 [0.49, 1.42]3 studies · 530 participantsGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.