↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 16%
Researcher 10 13%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 25 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
#9,589,919
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#734
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,697
of 261,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 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 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 261,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.