| Title |
Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: a review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s136221 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fu-Shan Xue, Hui-Xian Li, Ya-Yang Liu, Gui-Zhen Yang |
| Abstract |
The C-MAC videolaryngoscope is the first Macintosh-typed videolaryngoscope. Since the advent of its original version video Macintosh system in 1999, this device has been modified several times. A unique feature of C-MAC device is its ability to provide the 2 options of direct and video laryngoscopy with the same device. The available evidence shows that in patients with normal airways, C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy can provide comparable or better laryngeal views and exerts less force on maxillary incisors, but does not offer conclusive benefits with regard to intubation time, intubation success, number of intubation attempts, the use of adjuncts, and hemodynamic responses to intubation. In patients with predicted or known difficult airways, C-MAC videolaryngoscope can achieve a better laryngeal view, a higher intubation success rate and a shorter intubation time than direct laryngoscopy. Furthermore, the option to perform direct and video laryngoscopy with the same device makes C-MAC videolaryngoscope exceptionally useful for emergency intubation. In addition, the C-MAC videolaryngoscope is a very good tool for tracheal intubation teaching. However, tracheal intubation with C-MAC videolaryngoscope may occasionally fail and introduction of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in clinical practice must be accompanied by formal training programs in normal and difficult airway managements. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 17% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,902,783
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#969
of 1,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,305
of 314,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.