ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Is Mallampati classification a good screening test? A prospective cohort evaluating the predictive values of Mallampati test at different thresholds.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment on "Dental trauma related to orotracheal intubation".Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Predictors of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk Among Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in Colombian University Students.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently some discussion over the actual usefulness of performing preoperative upper airway assessment to predict difficult airways. In this field, modified Mallampati test (MMT) is a widespread tool used for prediction of difficult airways showing only a feeble predictive performance as a diagnostic test. We therefore aimed at evaluating if MMT test would perform better when used as a screening test rather than diagnostic.
methodsAn accuracy prospective study was conducted with 570 patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgical procedures. We collected preoperatively data on sex, age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), ASA physical status, and MMT. The main outcome was difficult laryngoscopy defined as Cormack and Lahane classes 3 or 4. Bivariate analyses were performed to build three different predictive models with their ROC curves.
resultsDifficult laryngoscopy was reported in 36 patients (6.32%). Sex, ASA physical status, and MMT were associated with difficult laryngoscopy, while body mass index (BMI) was not. The MMT cut-off with the highest odds ratio was the class II, which also presented significantly higher sensitivity (94.44%). The balanced accuracy was 67.11% (95% CI: 62.78...71.44%) for the cut-off of class II and 71.68% (95% CI: 63.83...79.54) for the class III.
conclusionMMT seems to be more clinically useful when the class II is employed as the threshold for possible difficult laryngoscopies. At this cut-off, MMT shows the considerable highest sensitivity plus the highest odds ratio, prioritizing thus the anticipation of difficult laryngoscopies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.