Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37600997›Full record

ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2023

Expert consensus on difficult airway assessment.

Ming Xia, Wuhua Ma, Mingzhang Zuo, Xiaoming Deng, Fushan Xue, Denise Battaglini, Vivek Aggarwal, Giustino Varrassi, Vladimir Cerny, Ida Di Giacinto and 12 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Ten tips for a safe approach in airway management.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Effect of Anesthesia Type on Airway Assessment Tests in Cesarean Delivery Operations: A Prospective Comparative Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Ming XiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wuhua MaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Mingzhang ZuoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China.
Xiaoming DengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, CAMS and PUMC, Beijing, China.
Fushan XueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Denise BattagliniAnesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Vivek AggarwalDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.
Giustino VarrassiPaolo Procacci Foundation, Roma, Italy.
Vladimir CernyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Ida Di GiacintoUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Mazzoni Hospital, Ascoli Piceno, Italy.
Rita CataldoUnit of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Department of Medicine, Università Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Roma, Italy.
Daqing MaDivision of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Toru YamamotoDivision of Dental Anesthesiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, Japan.
Martina RekatsinaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Alessandro De CassaiInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Andrea CarsettiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marvin G ChangDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Edwin SeetLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniel P DavisDivision of Emergency Medical Services, Logan Health, Kalispell, MT, USA.
Michael G IrwinDepartment of Anesthesiology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Yuguang Huang *Department of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hong Jiang *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Identifying a potentially difficult airway is crucial both in anaesthesia in the operating room (OR) and non-operation room sites. There are no guidelines or expert consensus focused on the assessment of the difficult airway before, so this expert consensus is developed to provide guidance for airway assessment, making this process more standardized and accurate to reduce airway-related complications and improve safety. Methods: Seven members from the Airway Management Group of the Chinese Society of Anaesthesiology (CSA) met to discuss the first draft and then this was sent to 15 international experts for review, comment, and approval. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is used to determine the level of evidence and grade the strength of recommendations. The recommendations were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from experts. Results: This expert consensus provides a comprehensive approach to airway assessment based on the medical history, physical examination, comprehensive scores, imaging, and new developments including transnasal endoscopy, virtual laryngoscopy, and 3D printing. In addition, this consensus also reviews some new technologies currently under development such as prediction from facial images and voice information with the aim of proposing new research directions for the assessment of difficult airway. Conclusions: This consensus applies to anesthesiologists, critical care, and emergency physicians refining the preoperative airway assessment and preparing an appropriate intubation strategy for patients with a potentially difficult airway.

Indexed as

airway managementdifficult airwayExpert consensus

Identifiers

PMID37600997
PMCPMC10432292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.