Primary study · included by 1 review

Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways

Ng 2012 · Ng I., Hill A.L., Williams D.L., et al. · British Journal of Anaesthesia · 2012

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 Ng 2012 · Table 1; Table 3; Results 3.6

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
First-pass intubation success McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	OR 0.89 [0.45, 1.78]	3 studies · 530 participants	GRADE not reported
Time to intubation McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	MD 9.59 [-1.35, 20.52]	6 studies · 780 participants	Very low
First-pass intubation success McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	OR 0.54 [0.36, 0.82]	6 studies · 780 participants	GRADE not reported
Time to intubation McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	MD 14.12 [10.10, 18.14]	4 studies · 330 participants	GRADE not reported
Time to intubation McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	MD 14.29 [3.81, 24.76]	4 studies · 330 participants	GRADE not reported
First-pass intubation success McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	OR 0.54 [0.29, 1.01]	6 studies · 780 participants	Low
Time to intubation McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	MD 7.40 [4.54, 10.26]	6 studies · 780 participants	GRADE not reported
First-pass intubation success McGrath videolaryngoscope vs C-MAC videolaryngoscope	OR 0.83 [0.49, 1.42]	3 studies · 530 participants	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.