ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparison of NoSAS score with STOP-Bang and Berlin scores in predicting difficult airway.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scoring systems, which are utilized to predict obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), in forecasting difficult airway management. Additionally, the study sought to determine which of these scoring systems is the most practical and effective for this purpose.
methodsFollowing the ethics committee approval, preoperative NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scores were calculated for 420 patients aged 18 years and older who were scheduled for tracheal intubation. Mask ventilation and intubation were performed by research assistant with a minimum of two years of experience. Detailed examinations and recordings were conducted, including demographic data, neck circumference, OSAS diagnosis, history of difficult intubation, comorbidities, ASA classification, Mallampati classification, and Cormack-Lehane grade. Subsequently, the predictive efficacy of these three scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation was compared.
resultsIn our study, 83 patients (19.8%) were classified as having difficult mask ventilation, and 101 patients (24.0%) were classified as having difficult intubation. The NoSAS score demonstrated a higher predictive power compared to the other scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation. The cut-off value for the NoSAS score was determined to be 6.5 for predicting difficult mask ventilation and 7.5 for predicting difficult intubation.
conclusionThe routine implementation of the NoSAS score, an easy-to-use, rapid and objective tool primarily developed for OSAS screening, is likely to be effective in preoperatively identifying difficult airways in patients undergoing general anesthesia.
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.