Predicting difficult intubation–worthwhile exercise or pointless ritual?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anatomic markers are in general poor predictors of difficulty with airway management.
“Anatomic markers are in general poor predictors of difficulty with airway management”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [18]
90% of difficult intubations are unanticipated.
“with 90% of difficult intubations unanticipated”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [18]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kovacs, G., & Sowers, N. (2018) · Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.emc.2017.08.006 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yentis, S. M.
- Corresponding author
- S. M. Yentis
- Venue
- Anaesthesia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01-23
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-109
- ISSN
- 0003-2409 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2044
- OpenAlex
- W2066092242
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 14.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Keywords
- difficult intubation, intubation prediction, preoperative assessment, airway management, endotracheal intubation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
