evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

A Comparison of McGrath MAC Versus C-MAC Videolaryngoscopes in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Akbas 2019 · Akbas Sedat, Ozkan Ahmet Selim, Karaaslan Erol · Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care · 2019

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 Akbas 2019 · 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.