Observational studyCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2024
Comparison of the modified Mallampati classification score versus the best visible Mallampati score in the prediction of difficult tracheal intubation: a single-centre prospective observational study.
Observational study in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02788253 (Comparison of the Mallampati Classification and Best Visible Mallampati for Prediction of Difficult Tracheal Intubation), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of the Mallampati Classification and Best Visible Mallampati for Prediction of Difficult Tracheal Intubation
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe modified Mallampati classification is part of the preoperative airway risk assessment. Inconsistency in the way it is examined may contribute to heterogeneity in its diagnostic performance. The best visible Mallampati score could reduce interobserver heterogeneity but its diagnostic characteristics remain unknown.
methodsDuring preoperative anesthesia consultation of adult patients with a senior anesthesiologist, we compared the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score using cervical extension, tongue in, and phonation. The primary outcome was the diagnostic characteristic of the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score as predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation (more than two direct laryngoscopies or need for an alternate device). We performed a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation in the tested cohort.
resultsDifficult orotracheal intubation occurred in 77/3,243 (2.4%) patients. A best visible Mallampati score was obtained in 1,596 (49.2%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the modified Mallampati classification score for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.66) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.71), respectively. By comparison, the best visible Mallampati score was less sensitive (difference, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.30; P < 0.001) but more specific (difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22 to -0.25; P < 0.001). In patients with difficult orotracheal intubation, 53% were incorrectly reclassified as low risk by the best visible Mallampati score.
conclusionCompared with the modified Mallampati classification score, the best visible Mallampati score decreased sensitivity for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation and falsely classified half of the patients with difficult orotracheal intubation. Taking the risks associated with difficult airways into account, our findings indicate that a careful examination of the modified Mallampati classification is required during the global preoperative airway examination. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 ); 9 February 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39147992What 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.