Which test best predicts difficult endotracheal intubation? A prospective cohort study

Alp, G.

doi:10.14744/tjtes.2022.34460

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of these studies (159 articles) were conducted in Asia [ 4 , 17 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 37 , 39 – 42 , 44 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 53 – 56 , 62 – 64 , 66 – 69 , 71 – 73 , 76 – 80 , 83 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 95 , 98 – 103 , 105 , 107 – 109 , 112 – 123 , 125 , 127 – 134 , 136 – 141 , 143 , 146 – 148 , 150 – 153 , 156 , 158 , 160 – 180 , 182 , 183 , 185 , 186 , 188 – 193 , 195 , 196 , 198 – 200 , 203 – 217 , 219 , 221 , 223 – …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of preoperative difficult airway prediction methods for adult patients without obvious airway abnormalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wang,

Jin,

Zheng

et al. 2024

BMC Anesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This systematic review aims to assist clinical decision-making in selecting appropriate preoperative prediction methods for difficult tracheal intubation by identifying and synthesizing literature on these methods in adult patients undergoing all types of surgery. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive electronic searches across multiple databases were completed on March 28, 2023. Two researchers independently screened, selected studies, and extracted data. A total of 227 articles representing 526 studies were included and evaluated for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-Disc software computed pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPC), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, Cochran’s-Q, and I2 index, with meta-regression exploring sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using Deeks’ funnel plot. Results Out of 2906 articles retrieved, 227 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 686,089 patients. The review examined 11 methods for predicting difficult tracheal intubation, categorized into physical examination, multivariate scoring system, and imaging test. The modified Mallampati test (MMT) showed a SEN of 0.39 and SPC of 0.86, while the thyromental distance (TMD) had a SEN of 0.38 and SPC of 0.83. The upper lip bite test (ULBT) presented a SEN of 0.52 and SPC of 0.84. Multivariate scoring systems like LEMON and Wilson’s risk score demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity. Imaging tests, particularly ultrasound-based methods such as the distance from the skin to the epiglottis (US-DSE), exhibited higher sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.77). Significant heterogeneity was identified across studies, influenced by factors such as sample size and study design. Conclusion No single preoperative prediction method shows clear superiority for predicting difficult tracheal intubation. The evidence supports a combined approach using multiple methods tailored to specific patient demographics and clinical contexts. Future research should focus on integrating advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and deep learning to improve predictive models. Standardizing testing procedures and establishing clear cut-off values are essential for enhancing prediction reliability and accuracy. Implementing a multi-modal predictive approach may reduce unanticipated difficult intubations, improving patient safety and outcomes.

show abstract