Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.4103/sja.sja_1058_20

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.4103/sja.sja_1058_20
suck pdf from google scholar
34188630!8191259!34188630
unlimited free pdf from europmc34188630    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=34188630&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid34188630      Saudi+J+Anaesth 2021 ; 15 (2): 131-136
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial #MMPMID34188630
  • Vig S; Bhan S; Gupta N; Meena JK; Bhatnagar S
  • Saudi J Anaesth 2021[Apr]; 15 (2): 131-136 PMID34188630show ga
  • INTRODUCTION: Intubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. METHODOLOGY: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over. RESULTS: The mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s, P = (p-0.063)]. POGO score [mean (S. D.)] was better with CMAC [81.33 (16.24) vs 60.33 (14.73), p-0.00. The majority of the users preferred C-MAC VL for intubation (93.33%). The incidence of failed intubation and multiple attempts at intubating were similar with the two scopes. CONCLUSION: The time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin.
  • ?


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box