ReviewCureus2025
Reliability of the Cormack-Lehane Classification: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy as compared to direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Resuscitation · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Performance of the Bebé VieScope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
We aimed to find and describe studies estimating the reliability of the Cormack-Lehane and modified Cormack-Lehane classifications, using the kappa statistic (κ). We performed a scoping review searching PubMed as well as Google Scholar and Google.com (gray literature) between October 2024 and January 2025 for published studies without date or language restrictions reporting a κ for Cormack-Lehane grades between at least two raters. We screened 825 records in PubMed and 1,200 in the gray literature of which 15 articles ultimately met our inclusion criteria. Most studies used still images (n=6) and pre-recorded videos (n=8) obtained from a direct (n=5), video (n=5), or fiberoptic (n=4) laryngoscopy (one used both direct and video) performed by clinicians from multiple specialties on patients in the operating room (n=8), simulation (n=2), office (n=3), and prehospital (n=1) settings (one unknown). Studies examined both the Cormack-Lehane classification (n=10) and the modified classification (n=6). Inter-rater reliability ranged from slight to almost perfect, κ from 0.020 to 0.888. The evidence examining the reliability of the Cormack-Lehane and modified Cormack-Lehane classifications is limited with heterogeneous methods and results.
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.